Sack Kevin Rudd

Kevin Rudd continues to damage Australia’s international reputation, writes Mark Sharma.

There are many competitions and pageants out there that honour the most popular and talented people among us. Nobel Peace Prize, Miss Universe, Magsaysay Award and The Oscars have all recognized the talents and achievements of selected individuals from across the world for many years.

Unfortunately, there is no award for the most unpopular people on this planet. Had there been something on those lines, I’m sure Kevin Rudd would have made it to that list. On 24^th June 2010, Kevin Rudd was dumped by his own party. The official reason was that he was presiding over a “government that had lost its way”. But the real reason was that he was an arrogant, self absorbed man, who believed that he was “indispensable” to the system. Thankfully, the faceless men of Labor party were watching the polls closely and decided to pull the plug on that freak show.

So what did Rudd do next? Not Much. A public cry and few media leaks later, Kevin Rudd was back at what he does best i.e. annoy people.

But this time he has gone global. Like a viral video on YouTube, Kevin Rudd’s strange thoughts have made it to every corner of the world. The controversy surrounding Wikileaks is still unfolding. It has touched almost every country in the world and has embarrassed many political leaders. From America to China, nobody has been spared by it.

Interestingly enough, all leaked cables regarding Australia have one common factor. It’s Kevin Rudd and his lunatic style of diplomacy. As per leaked cables, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked him how he would deal with America’s banker China, Kevin Rudd advocated use of force “if everything (else) goes wrong”. This is not the first time that Kevin Rudd has made offensive remarks against the Chinese. It has been reported widely that he referred to Chinese negotiators as “rat f**kers” at the Copenhagen climate change conference. According to Wikileaks, Kevin Rudd also made a less than flattering remark about current Chinese President Hu Jintao in comparison with his predecessor Jiang Zemin. He compared the two men by saying that Mr. Hu was “no Jiang Zemin”. It is clear from these leaks that either Kevin Rudd has no idea what he is talking about or he is making bold statements to win American approval.

But sadly for Mr. Rudd, America is not buying it. In the latest set of leaks, the US Embassy in Canberra described him as “a micro-manager obsessed with managing the media cycle rather than engaging in collaborative decision-making”. The Americans were so unhappy with his attitude and performance that they even questioned whether he was fit to be in-charge in the first place. As expected, Kevin Rudd has brushed off all criticism and made another of his “I don’t give a damn” statements. Ironically, it was the same callous attitude shown by Kevin Rudd that prompted Americans to call him an “abrasive, impulsive control freak” in the official cables.

Kevin Rudd is already very unpopular in India for his decision to not sell Uranium and cancelling joint military exercises with Japan, US, Singapore and India. China, India and USA are three of the most populous countries in the world and together represent nearly 50% of humanity.  It is clear that these three nations are less than impressed by Kevin Rudd. But unfortunately, they have to deal with him as he is representing Australia in the international community. This is hurting Australia’s image abroad and complicating our strategic partnerships with key allies. Opposition leader Tony Abbott has already declared that “if he was the Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd would not be in his Cabinet”.

Opportune time has come for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the tough decision and sack Kevin Rudd for the sake of Australia’s national interest. For once, the Labor party should put national interest ahead of political compulsions and do the right thing.

Mark Sharma is an Independent Conservative politician who stood as a candidate in the electorate of Watson in NSW. He writes regularly for Indian-Australian Newspaper Indian Link and on his blog Voice of Strathfield

Comments

[Andy]

1.

Mark, no argument from me – Kevin Rudd is a megalomaniac.
However, with Gillard needing every seat to keep her in power, she won’t have the ticker to sack Rudd for the fear he spits the dummy and quits parliament for plumb UN job. Given the swing to win Rudd’s seat I believe is less than 4%, a by election win to Abbott would mean game over for Gillard.
So Gillard will bite her tongue and say nice things about Kevin just so she can cling to power.

[Ben]

2.

Rudd should have been sacked for his children’s book. That was an international disgrace.

[steven]

3.

Rudd is a legend in his own mind.
a wannabee who doesn't have what it takes.

[Dan Nolan]

4.

Your response to this is that Rudd should be sacked, not that Gillard resign for her ludicrous claims of illegality against an Australian citizen?

Wow.

[Mark Sharma]

5.

Its not just about Wikileaks! Kevin Rudd is the Foreign minister and his job is to improve our relations with Key International players (some of them I mentioned above)

But what is he really doing with his BIG mouth? He is pissing off people left, right & centre.

This is bad for Australia. And yes I support Wikileaks too and agree that Australia has abandoned Assange but this piece is not about Wikileaks or Assange. Its about Kevin Rudd & what a problem he is becoming!

[Elizabeth]

6.

"Rudd is a legend in his own mind." Love it Steven. So scathingly succinct.

Unfortunately, he is a wannabee who became a something and jiggered up a few things here and there and because of Gillard's fear of losing power, he continues on his merry way.

The thing which gives me pause for thought re Rudd is Greg Sheridan's (Foreign Editor, The Australian) - the opinion's of whom always make sense to me - seeming worship of the man. Makes me wonder, if Sheridan thinks he is such a legend, whether there is more to Rudd than meets the eye.

Mature reflection suggests Mr. Sheridan may have a blind spot, as with most of the Australian media, where Rudd is concerned.

[Paul]

7.

Elizabeth, I also share your respect for Greg Sheridan. I think the "blind spot" of which you speak is actually in the viewpoint of those who fail to acknowledge anything good or decent about Kevin Rudd.
His comments about China to the Americans were exactly the sort of comments I would hope any Australian politician would make. That is, we should hope that China integrates into the world community but be realistic and prepared if this is not the case. Our alliance with the US is far greater than any ties we have with China.
Kevin Rudd has made his name by being a Mandarin speaker and a former diplomat in China but people overlook that he has always been a strongly pro-US figure, much like Kim Beazley and other members of the Labor Right. Greg Sheridan's journalistic record as a friend of America - and a person who has spent of lot of time in the States - is well known to anyone who reads The Australian.
Rudd has not done anything wrong in his role as Foreign Minister and there is no legitimate basis upon which to sack him. The fact that he is a source of discomfort for Gillard and Co. is not his problem. They were the ones who sacked him.

[Revin Kudd]

8.

Please don't sack me! I've been demoted once already. Free foreign trips is the only thing that keeps me going. Don't take that away from me.

[Newtown Alliance]

9.

Kevin Rudd was one of the most successful Prime Minister's Australia has ever had. He had higher approval ratings then even John Howard.

He signed Kyoto Protocol, apologised to stolen generation, organised 20-20 summit, brought ETS and saved our economy from GFC.

The only reason why he was removed was because he wanted fat rich ba$*ards like Clive Palmer and others to pay more for our minerals.

Instead of sacking him, I hope bloody Liberals sack themselves!

[Georgina]

10.

Good article Mark, and Andy - I totally agree with you and others who state that JG will do anything to stay in power even to sully Australian's reputation worldwide. We have seen her ruthlessness in her bribes even to the point of reneging on promises prior to the election to now pander to the Greens. Yes, Dan Nolan she should resign also for her "ludicrous claims of illegality against an Australian citzen" Wait until we see how she handles this. In fact she has made some blunders on her last trip thinking that Indonesia will listen to her rhetoric regarding offshore processing. What a Government we have??

[Pip]

11.

Elizabeth,

I’m here for other reasons but chanced upon this and I agree with you.

You might remember Kevin Rudd had a breakfast meeting with Bill Clinton before the G20 meeting in Philadelphia I think, the one in conjunction with the G8 in NY just before Copenhagen. I think that Rudd has positioned himself as a special envoy for the Clinton’s.

At the time I said I thought it was because Obama was so constrained he could not do anything, Like Gulliver. The little people, no doubt metaphorically the Rebublicans et al had him in a noose on everything.

The Clinton’s used Rudd to try and get a break through at Copenhagan and Rudd got ---pasted by the Chinese and ultimately lost his job. The American’s, particularly the Clinton’s are in debt to Rudd.

Rudd has got off-side with the Chinese but definitely not the US Democrats, all the other stuff is local scuttle butt. That’s my opinion whether you want it or not.

Maybe I was set up to give it?

Never know with the canny Elizabeth?

I was interested to see that Helen Mirren is playing Prospero’s role in a film of Shakespeare’s TEMPEST !

[Alan Greenspan]

12.

Don't feed the trolls

[Andy]

13.

Kevin Rudd is nothing but and elitist twat!
Kevin looks after Kevin. He couldn’t give a flying fk about anyone else.
Where’s my hair dryer? Bringing hostesses to tears, directly responsible for the deaths for 4 roof insulation installers, Billions pissed up against the wall and when push came to shove on the “Greatest moral challenge of our time” – the fraud of AGW – he chickened out, so he’s also gutless too.
The guy is a walking, talking disaster zone.

He will go down in history as Australia’s worst PM, with Whitlam 2nd and Gillard a closer 3rd.
Typical progressives – they fk-up everything they touch

[Pip]

14.

Note:

Elizabeth’s post No6 was made at:
Reply December 11, 2010 at 08:58 AM

I signalled that I was going to reply at about 11.50 pm

There were no other replies existing at that time within the approximately 30 minutes in which I composed a reply.

All the other replies were put in by the Moderator. Ie they were not attending to my board at all until I showed up.

7 Paul
Reply December 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM

This one even before I arrived here, put in by the Moderator obviously at a fictitious time.

8 Kevin Rudd
Reply December 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

9 Newtown alliance
Reply December 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM

10 Georgina,

Reply December 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM

11 me

Reply December 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Four posts put in before mine was composed to show ME perhaps that, I am too slow to be one of the team.

However, regardless of how slow I am to be one of the team, this does not absolve you of telling me who you are or what your objectives are?

You are often showing me that I am slow----thanks I get that.

Society is providing more diversity of employment now, even to old, slower people. If you represent the NEW THOUGHT/ NEW AGE thinking---where is your diversity?

Easy for the Moderator troll to trump up a few troll posts while I am composing a REPLY----A REAL REPLY---"collective troll moderator"----a technician who would not know how to think for himself.

Thanks for disrupting my afternoon.

[Pip]

15.

I'm not going to play this forever.

My last post deleted and replaced by andy (13)

Reply December 11, 2010 at 01:39 PM

My post-----I will try again.

If it is published it will be 14 but was actiually 13.

Note:

Elizabeth’s post No6 was made at:
Reply December 11, 2010 at 08:58 AM

I signaled that I was going to reply at about 11.50 pm

There were no other replies existing at that time within the approximately 30 minutes in which I composed a reply.

All the other replies were put in by the Moderator. Ie they were not attending to my board at all until I showed up.

Paul
Reply December 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM

This one even before I arrived here, put in by the Moderator obviously at a fictitious time.

Kevin Rudd
Reply December 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Newtown alliance
Reply December 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Georgina,

Reply December 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Four posts put in before mine was composed to show ME perhaps thatIam too slow to be one of the team. However, regardless of how slow I am to be one of the team, this does not absolve you of telling me who you are or what your objectives are?
Society is providing more diversity of employment now, even to old, slower people. If you represent the NE W THOUGHT/ NEW AGE thinking---where is your diversity?

Easy for the Moderator troll to trump up a few troll posts while I am composing a REPLY----A REAL REPLY---"collective troll moderator"----a technician who would not know how to think for himself.

Thanks for disrupting my afternoon.

[Pip]

16.

So they put both in after Andy

Mine 14

Reply December 11, 2010 at 01:42 PM

There was no ANY POST UP AT ALL???

Mine 15

Reply December 11, 2010 at 01:47 PM

ANDY'S obviously at a fictitious time....by the Moderator.

[Pip]

17.

There was no ANY POST UP AT ALL???

Typo or alteration by mod.

That was supposed to be

>>>There was no ANDY POST UP AT ALL???

PIP POST 16 went in at:
Reply December 11, 2010 at 01:51 PM

[Elizabeth]

18.

Paul, I sort of agree with you.

Rudd's comment that China should integrate with the world community made perfect sense.

What I didn't care for so much is the (can't call it a fact, really) matter of his telling America they should use force against China if necessary and that Australia would join them.

If true a true interpretation, a strange thing to do, I feel.

Surely, even in the world of diplomacy, one should keep a "straight" face with both nations if you want to be seen as credible.

[Pip]

19.

Unfortunately, that typo or whatever will mean that no ordinary reader will give my credibility the time of day.

The moderator by blitzing me with how many is it? Five made up posts has made me look like a dill for cataloging it and dfending it.

Maybe if I had not made the typo, my defence would have looked reasonable.

You guys are really low lives.

If anyone wants to believe your artifice, when I'm bothering to protest so loudly, even with Typo's they are sheep---pure and simple----sheep.

Nobody follows the trail and gives up precious time to make a fuss over nothing.

I am no loony, I am no troll.

The Moderator is simply trouncing me, larking with me because I'm a slow typer.

[steven]

20.

newtown alliance...(would that be newtown socialist alliance)?
the Japanese have rejected Kyoto.
saying sorry did nothing.
the ets was abandoned by rudd,thank goodness.
the 20-20 summit was nothing more than a talk fest which achieved zero and cost millions.
what saved us from the minor effects of the gfc was Costello leaving us debt free and with a 20 billion dollar surplus,and making the banking industry a lot more secure.

[Andy]

21.

Tip for Pip.
Write your reply in MS word or something like that and then simply cut and paste it in otherwise you going to always “time out”

But please stop your over infectious replies and rants.

You already killed my last blog and now you have killed Mark's

[Pip]

22.

My reply. To Elizabeth in 18

Obviously, because Rudd is playing Australia as America's envoy as I said Elizabeth in 11. But as ever, social engineering incorporated wants to dismiss pip. DISSING PIP IS THE WAY TO GO.

Just as the ALP, is so afraid that the American's will diss them that is why they are always playing tiddily winks with the Americans, like Mark ARBIB.

Rudd kept ARBIB, close because he knew he was close with the AMERICANS.

When Rudd got Forien affairs under Gillard he went straight to the US AMBASSADER, Blaize and got the photo opp of him and Blaize strolling lakeside. So the US and everyone else knew he was back in the saddle.

Rudd talks about China being paranoic about Taiwan!

The ALP IS PARANOIC that the US will drop the ALP!!

Thanks Elizabeth for trying to make me "out" myself in someway. I don't care, I'm the upfront one, not the sneaky social engineer.

The truth is that you are lieing about who you are, presenting yourselves as sheep, when you are actually a wolves.

Sure, Elizabeth has her role down pat.

But all are new thought, new age, friend of the UN FRIENLY AMERICANS quite a differnt kettle of fish to the GOP OR TEA PARTY CROWD.

You are either the Gorbechev New Agers or the Maurice Strong/ Rockerfeller/ UN New Agers.

But through the much more soft and cuddly Agenda 21, sustainability, Ramsar, Landcare, Rural agenda, that is much less threatening on the surface to the nice rural folk like Paul who disports himself as Rural Conservative

But who knows, he is probabably one of your lot?

Your purpose, as far as I can see it, is to dislodge the Barnaby Joyce EFFECT in the bush. To educate the bushies into your NEW age agenda.

[Pip]

23.

Posts 21 22.

Andy,

There are no other posters than you lot.

There is nothing to kill.

Its you lot versus PIP, the outsider.

You do all your other, discourse with other folk on separate boards.

The reason you never talk politics as in Coalition versus ALP is to try and hide that you are not really either, you are as I said Gorbechev/ Strong NEW Age Greenies ( socialist/ freemarketeers) to be simplistic.

You are trying to be the thread that weaves Greens, Socialists and freemarket libertarians together.

But in terms of existing parties you are most against the Conservatism of Abbott, Bernardi, Minchin.

These are the one's you see as the enemy because they can mobilize ignorant fear against you, as you see it.

But as I see it the Barnaby Joyce effect can rid us of the ALP. There is time to educate the masses later.

But you would agree the ends sought by you and me are I guess different ultimately.

Andy,

You actually love to give me a platform to tell where I am at.

I would love to provide a platform for you to tell me exactly where your at?

I would like you to confirm or deny my supposition but as we know you always lie.

So feel free to tell the truth for once?

[jim]

24.

Pip, what a load of self indulgent rambling about nothing!

[Elizabeth]

25.

Pip, Andy probably has a point. If I want to comment on a subject and need to do a little research, I use word and then post to the site in question.

No harm in trying this as it gives you time to think through what you have written to see if it makes a coherent argument and is relevant to the article in question. That way you will not run out of time to respond, either.

For my own part, I was unsure whether to respond to you or not, but felt it was a bit unkind to ignore your undoubted angst.

I am not canny - in most interpretations - the common one being shrewd. I write what I truly believe and I am not responsible for the interpretation others place on what I have written.

I do, however, always try to be coherent, logical and clear (although I am not averse to a little emotiveness if it lends depth or interest) in response to any article - might not always succeed, but that is my aim.

And as for "having my role down pat" I'm not at all sure what you mean by that, but don't much like the implication.

I play no role other than as a respondent to articles which I feel strongly about for one reason or another.

I am deeply sorry that you feel your opinions are worthless as that is often a sign of paranoia, lack of confidence, poor self-image or perhaps a little too much lunchtime shiraz.

I like this site very much; I like the articles which some writers post, don't understand others, have no expertise of any sort in yet others and love to banter - or rather try my hand at a bit of political satire (sometimes a bit viscious) in response to the very laudable David Russell when he was posting.

Pip, don't get het up about your opinions being unworthy, we all, perhaps, feel that at times. But do keep them concise and to the point.

Don't give up responding, because most people have a point to make and their right to do so should be respected and, I'm sure, most of the time is.

But, do take time to consider your response for relevance and logic. And, I don't think for one moment there is anything underhand about this site. Perhaps, with a little calm thought, you will not think so either.

[Andy]

26.

WTF?

PIP Said
“But in terms of existing parties you are most against the Conservatism of Abbott, Bernardi, Minchin.”
and
“I would like you to confirm or deny my supposition but as we know you always lie.
So feel free to tell the truth for once?”
You really are gone in the head aren’t you Pip. I’m just saying what a lot of other people are thinking, that your posts are too laborious and boring.
Regarding your above quotes, go back and have another read of a few of my posts (http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/andy-semple/) and then you may just regret post such stupid remarks.
So stop being so precious and paranoid and why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and contribute your own authored articles to MH.

Posts 14,15,16,17 & 19 prove you’re a stubby short of a six pack and this will be the last time I bother replying to you and giving you air on this site.
Take Elizabeth’s advice.

[Mark Sharma]

27.

Rudd has not done anything wrong in his role as Foreign Minister and there is no legitimate basis upon which to sack him.

Just one question for you mate.

If Rudd has been so good to America then why do Americans think this about him? http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-us-embassy-on-kevin-rudd-20101208-18pse.html

Fact of the matter is that Kevin Rudd is trying to fool everyone in order get ahead. I bet when he meets Chinese he tells them the same thing.

This is typical of Kevin Rudd. Remember "lurch to right and appeasement of the left" drama that he did which eventually led to his down fall from the top job.

Let's face it. Kevin Rudd does not have what it takes! In fact, I'd say that Shelf-stacker Mark Arbib is better than so called Diplomat Rudd.

But at the end of the day, Australia must make sure that the person who is going to represent us overseas can command the respect of the International Community.

And Kevin Rudd cant do that. Today or tomorrow, Kevin Rudd will have to go!

[Mark Sharma]

28.

He signed Kyoto Protocol, apologised to stolen generation, organised 20-20 summit, brought ETS and saved our economy from GFC.

1.) What did he achieve from Kyoto protocol?

2.) Same for apology to Aborigines. Has it improved their lives? NO!

3.) 20-20 Summit was a massive failure.

4.) Brought ETS & dumped it!

5.) GFC- No Kevin Rudd did not save us from GFC. But Asia did.

Kevin Rudd wasted Billions of $$$$ and used his office as a personal propaganda tool. Eventually his own organisation had to dump him and now even a young kid like Paul Howes treats him like a dog!

Thats Kevin Rudd!

[Dan Nolan]

29.

Pip is such a loon.

[Dan Nolan]

30.

Maybe Pip is typing her messages using the on screen keybard

[Elizabeth]

31.

Much has been said re Kevin Rudd in response to Mark Sharma's very good article, but one thing has not been commented on.

To digress a little, I reading an article last night written by Greg Sheridan for The Australian on weekend 4-5 December about the nuclear threat of Iran.

He wrote apropos Arab leaders and I quote in part "...They...help the Americans...but they will not speak openly or honestly to their own people about the issue."

The conext and politics are different, but it is the "not speaking openly or honestly', that alerted me to the fact that Rudd tells, and told when PM, Australians one thing and behind the scenes the Americans and who knows who else something quite different.

It is this two-feacedness I was referring to in my above response to Paul. For example, if he cannot speak openly or honestly to Australians who provide the money for wars, the soldiers to fight in those wars, then he is not up to much and is certainly not to be trusted.

I seem also to remember him running around at the time of the Iraq war saying quite clearly that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction which he later was mainly silent about and which the media chose to ignore.

We all knew about Chemical Ali - later put to death - and the mass murder by chemical gas of the Kurds, something conveniently ignored in the comment of the time.

Rudd, from memory, also told Australians the Afghan war was winnable. But how can this be when Pakistan is used with impunity by terrorists striking into Afghanistan at will and when America panders to Pakistan instead of dealing appropriately with them?

Even his Mandarin speak was used more to impress Australian voters with his cleverness - thus to advance himself - than for honest, open dialogue with the Chinese when on a visit to Australia, or at any other time probably.

I agree totally with Mark. The man should be sacked. He is not worthy of trust nor is he worthy to hold a senior and important position like Foreign Affairs Minister.

But Gillard is, if possible, even weaker than Rudd and just as self-serving, so we are stuck with both of them for the time being.

[Mark Sharma]

32.

I agree totally with Mark. The man should be sacked. He is not worthy of trust nor is he worthy to hold a senior and important position like Foreign Affairs Minister.

Thanks Elizabeth. And yes I agree with others who say "Kevin Rudd is an Elitist". The thing is after Coalition was badly damaged in 2007, Rudd started believing that he was the new John Howard. The high approval ratings went to his head.

What he didn't realize was that people were voting for him because they hated WorkChoices and not because they loved him. At first, Labor power brokers kept quiet because this perception of Rudd being the new John Howard was working for them. But eventually the truth came in the open.

While Rudd is not the PM anymore, he is still occupying an important post and damaging it. This is very bad for Australia and therefore there is no other option but to make sure he leaves.

[Paul]

33.

Kevin Rudd should apparently be sacked for not being "open and honest". But if we're going to be fair about this matter of sacking people for not being consistent, why should Tony Abbott not be sacked as well?
- He backed the ETS for a long time before changing tack, just like Rudd and Iraq.
- He rejected paid parental leave once upon a time and then came up with the most unfair and discriminatory scheme of his own.
- He supported putting One Nation last on preferences but not putting The Greens last. (Adam Bandt has a lot of reasons to thank the Liberal Party!)

Rudd has not done anything wrong in his current role. When he does err, you can make the case to sack him. Until then, he has every right to maintain his position as Foreign Minister and to be judged according to his performance in that position. His recent response to the North Korean hostilities towards South Korea was quite impressive so we should be prepared to give credit where credit is due.

[Davo]

34.

@Paul said...

Mate, Tony Abbott is not the Foreign Minister but Kevin Rudd is. Nobody knows or cares about Abbott beyond Australia.

Kevin Rudd is representing us overseas and damaging US-Aus relations. We can't afford to loose American support for Rudd's sake.

[Elizabeth]

35.

Paul, Tony Abbott is not in Government and so his actions do not have the same consequences as Rudds.

The only thing you say about Tony Abbott that has much validity is his preferencing of the Greens. For this he has paid a heavy price and so have the people of Australia and we will continue to pay judging by the $600 million - sorry, $599 million Combet has just handed out in Concun.

I just don't know how you can say Rudd has not done anything wrong as Foreign Minister. He may have impressed you with his rhetoric on North Korean hostilities, but is what he says what he really believes? Maybe not! Of this he stands convicted by Wikileaks.

[Graham]

36.

Oh come on Elizabeth, surely you're not that naive?

Every politician says one thing and believes another!! In fact, it's practically in the job description. Find me one who doesn't?

In fact, the party system we have NECESSITATES precisely that. I'm all for greater honesty in politics, but don't make out like Kevin Rudd is the problem or the exception. He's the norm.

Once again I'm dumbfounded by the willingness of the people on this site to selectively apply their criticism to the other side, and deftly side stepping having to do the same for their own.

For everyone's sake, take up supporting a sporting team.

[Mark Sharma]

37.

hahahahahahaha

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/lets-vote-kevin-off-the-island-20101212-18tvi.html

Its good to know FairFax is following Menzies House

[Garry L.]

38.

The author's disingenuous. He knows as well as we do that Rudd is no worse then Downer or any of the corrupt Howard Regime were. This is pure political rhetoric against an X-PM who most Australians were better off under then the gutless puppet of the right Gillard. Rudd is respected globally. The fact is he's more popular overseas the he is here. Unlike Howard or Abbott, Rudd is not a global embarrassment. Unlike the coalition Rudd didn't arse-lick America for a decade, unlike the coalition Rudd didn't sellout climate action to please American Republicans and other moneyed politically regressive forces. unlike the coalition Rudd didn't bring shame to country by championing overtly racist foreign, and asylum seeker policies. Hardcore racists, self-professed neo-Nazis, world-wide cheered on the Liberal party's policies over their very recent decade+ in power. The biggest embarrassment to this country in a lifetime was the Howard Regime; mean, radically right-wing, racist, plutocrat and anti-democratic; bigots and capitalist parasites applauded internationally, but most of the world was rightly disgusted.

[Elizabeth]

39.

Maybe selectively applying our criticism to one side - your side, obviously, has something to do with the total and utter incompetence of their weak attempt at government.

As for politicians - I have one of the ilk you speak of representing my electorate and I treat him with the contempt he deserves.

Until politicians understand people are not stupid and are aware of their duplicity, then they will be treated with ever greater contempt as should those who condone or support this as the norm.

As for sport - are you saying it is some way more morally upright than politics and politicians?

Tell me, from whence did you wander?

[Graham]

40.

>> your side, obviously

Pft, I have as much disdain for parties like Labor and the Greens as I do for the Liberals or Nats. They're all as bad as each other. That's precisely my point Elizabeth. The fact you think I'm "on the other side" just shows your insistance on reducing political debate TO sides. I don't support either "side", I support a view of politics that does its upmost to provide an objective assessment, both of the issues and the politicians who deal with them. Not always successful, I'll readily admit, but at least I'm trying.

You and your friends, on the other hand, are not. ALL your criticism is directed at the opposition, and none for the party you support. You have the blinkers squarely in place and refuse to engage in self reflection, because you're too busy pointing the finger. Take a step back, take a breath, and ask yourself why. I'll give you a hint. It's not because your party of choice is any better than the others, it's because they adhere most to your sensibilities, and so you justify their flaws after that fact, or trivialise them, while seeking out and blowing up those of the other side, for the sake of it. This whole site is built on the concept.

>>Until politicians understand people are not stupid and are aware of their duplicity, then they will be treated with ever greater contempt as should those who condone or support this as the norm.

Couldn't agree more. If you reserved this judgment for ALL of them, rather than just those who don't adhere to your particular approach to life, then comments like that would hold a lot more water.

A case in point, someone earlier pointed out Abbott had also been less than transparent. Your immediate response was, "But he's not in Government so his actions are not as important!" Your instinct is not to also condemn Abbott for his behaviour, but to downplay its seriousness. Can you not see the problem there?

Whether in Government or not, it's the ENVIRONMENT that fosters this kind of behaviour. Oppositions often GET into Government! If they're duplicitous out of it, how do you think they're going to behave IN it?

But no. Your first reaction is to rush to a defence for your team, and rush to an attack on the opposition.

You're not interested in objectively assessing behaviour and trying to influence change. You're interested in scoring cheap political points so you can justify your own religious adherence to a political party.

So, my suggestion is that the country would be better off if this kind of approach was left OUT of politics. If you want to cheer and holler for a team, there are plenty of sports available for you to do so.

[Globserver]

41.

ALL your criticism is directed at the opposition, and none for the party you support.

ermm..in case you didn't realise..that's democracy!

[Globserver]

42.

You are one sad loser Graham. I hope your last name is not Richo..now is it? ;)

[elizabetth]

43.

Graham,

You say you don't support sides - does this mean you support independents? Interesting.

I would have thought the increasing cynicism of the electorate and their reluctance to fully back either side was an acknowledgement of the recognition of political duplicity and a disdain for it.

"...objectively assessing behaviour..." Guilty as charged. I know that objectivity is in the mind of the beholder and means the beholder will come down on the side of something he believes is good, just like the side takers, I suppose.

For me it is simple really. I believe in good government and happen to believe that conservatives do a better job than an amalgam of non-conservatives of any ilk.

The proof of this pudding exists before our very eyes presently.

I also acknowledge that there are many politicians of inferior quality - hence my contempt for my electorate member who is of my persuasion - in all parties who should not, in anyway be associated with the governance of a country.

What to do about it in a democracy is the conundrum. Until that little riddle is solved, then I keep my feet in the camp I favour for pretty valid reasons.