Who is Kevin Rudd? No one really knows - Polidicks

[release][B]Like Nixon, the PM's perceived opportunism may be his undoing.[/B] At the height of the 1956 US presidential election, Adlai Stevenson said of Richard Nixon: ''This is a man of many masks. Who can say they have seen his real face?'' Could the same thing be said about Kevin Rudd? In recent weeks, the Prime Minister has been taking a steady pounding on the charge that he's a flip-flopper: on home insulation, childcare centres, and most notably, emissions trading. All true. Then again, any sensible politician accepts the need to change positions depending on what the circumstances permit and the priorities of the day demand. Even conviction politicians swap positions on sensitive political issues: think John Howard's volte face on the Snowy Mountains hydro in 2006; or Paul Keating's U-turn on the GST. What makes Rudd so Nixonian, however, is that his flip-flops breed more doubt in people who already wonder where he's coming from. Whereas you always knew where Howard and Keating stood and what they were about, notwithstanding the odd policy U-turn, it is difficult to identify anything their successor seems genuinely to believe other than his own political success. He has no sense of philosophical identity, conviction and inner core. Now, lest I'm dismissed as merely a Liberal partisan, let me say that I think the Prime Minister has done some worthwhile things in office. His first budget stimulus in October 2008 was a decisive response to the Anglo-American financial crisis and played a role in insulating Australia from a gathering storm. His apology to indigenous Australians early in his term, something admittedly many conservatives had opposed, was as heartfelt as it was historic. His religious convictions, too, are genuine. Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Rudd is an opportunist of such proportions that the only thing that exceeds his reach is his grasp. There is always an air of detached calculation about his performances, a sense that in different circumstances he could just as happily be arguing the opposing case. This is a man who defined himself during the 2007 election campaign as an ''economic conservative'', committed to low public debt, fiscal rectitude and free-market reform, but who now represents the reincarnation of Whitlamism and a big-spending, big-government, debt-ridden agenda that caused so much economic angst in the 1970s. A man who appealed to the metropolitan sophisticates by weakening Howard's border protection policy, but who now panders to Howard's battlers by preaching a ''hardline'' policy against ''evil'' and ''vile'' people-smugglers. A man whose governing creed represents symbols, not action; phoney gestures rather than difficult decisions. A man who claimed climate change was ''the great moral challenge of our time'' and linked climate ''deniers'' with ''conspiracy theories'' and ''vested interests'', but who drops the evangelical language along with the ETS as soon as the political climate changes. Until recently, Rudd had ruthlessly used the issue of man-made global warming to attack his conservative opponents, culminating in the destruction of two Liberal leaders. But although the tactic lacked credibility after the collapse of the Copenhagen summit, he could have still been prepared to sell his case for decisive action on the hustings. But he was intimidated by Tony Abbott, scared of a political fight and went to water. Yet this is the kind of issue a normal prime minister would want to fight, maybe even spending political capital to do it. Howard and Keating were never afraid to challenge popular opinion and provoke people into thinking and then arguing about the causes they sincerely believed were in the nation's interest. Rudd always takes the path of least resistance. And so the question persists: Does Rudd believe in anything in the policy debates, or is he a creature of Sussex Street graphics, sliding into the minds of whichever crowd he's talking to? Which bring us back to Nixon. The consensus among American liberals, led by the aforementioned Democrat Stevenson in 1956, was that ''Tricky Dick'' had espoused so many different positions, often repeatedly and stridently, that he left virtually everyone with the impression that his arguments were always suspect. During his presidency more than a decade later, Nixon confirmed his opponents' suspicions as well as his conservative base's worst fears. One moment, he was a staunch anti-communist and red baiter; the next, he was doing detente with the Soviets and supping with Mao Zedong. One moment, he was fiscal conservative and supporter of states' rights; the next, he was an unashamed Keynesian and centralist. The friction of playing the role of conviction warrior while being in reality a malleable politician was one of many reasons for Nixon's downfall. Will this also destroy Kevin Rudd?[/release] [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/who-is-kevin-rudd-no-one-really-knows-20100509-ulnt.html?autostart=1"]Link (Video on it aswell)[/URL] Kevin Crudd :smug:

Both parties suck now, Liberals used to be good, but now they're just more big government shitheads. We need an honest third party.

I do believe this is an opinion piece. Rudd is an idiot, but it's not really news.

Isn't Kevin Rudd the drummer in Judas Priest?

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21851666]Isn't Kevin Rudd the drummer in Judas Priest?[/QUOTE] hi i'm MisterMooth and i try to be funny

Hi I'm QueenElizebeth and I'm a shitposter [editline]04:40PM[/editline] Also, it's "Elizabeth".

I thought we established that Kevin Rudd has personal ties to the Chinese government.

First thing I thought of at reading the title was "Who is John Galt" from Atlas Shrugged.

This thread is going to be full of American and European posters who have no handle or understanding of Australian politics, other than 'Vote Rudd out', unaware that All competition to him is twice as bad.

From what I gathered on the subject they really are a bunch of idiots, but this makes the least stupid seem like a bigger enemy than the rest.

oh look another completely useless by Best4Bond, we already knew this, it happened yesterday. To point out as well, both the parties are dead even on the Nielsen poll, its just Rudd's personal rating has dropped, Nielsen also only asks about 1000 people hardly the demopgrahic needed for an accurate poll. This isnt groundbreaking news, the rest of the news thread does not need to know about Australia's Prime Minister's approval rating. Come back when there is something major to report.

[QUOTE=hehe;21852210]oh look another completely useless by Best4Bond, we already knew this, it happened yesterday. To point out as well, both the parties are dead even on the Nielsen poll, its just Rudd's personal rating has dropped, Nielsen also only asks about 1000 people hardly the demopgrahic needed for an accurate poll. This isnt groundbreaking news, the rest of the news thread does not need to know about Australia's Prime Minister's approval rating. Come back when there is something major to report.[/QUOTE] They ask the only 1000 people in WA...

The treasurer could have gone about introducing the Mining tax a little better. But my god, they do deserve it, I cringe whenever I see them on the tele whining about how it will completely destroy the industry, they still will be making a large profit margin.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;21852284]The treasurer could have gone about introducing the Mining tax a little better. But my god, they do deserve it, I cringe whenever I see them on the tele whining about how it will completely destroy the industry, they still will be making a large profit margin.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point, its 2%, which doesn't seem like much but the overall is 50%, so half of their profit is going to the government, from land which BHP bough and own. Without thinking they could downsize or pack up here (doubt it) and move to somewhere like Canada which taxes loads less on minerals and oil, the Canadians jumped right onto this idea when they heard about the tax rise. We are looking at Australia's largest source of jobs and profit for the next 50 years, Labour has made a big mistake doing this, they're going to struggle through this election majorly.

[QUOTE=CivilProtection;21851598]Both parties suck now, Liberals used to be good, but now they're just more big government shitheads. We need an honest third party.[/QUOTE] We get to choose between some religious fuck-wit and a fuck-wit that speaks mandarin.

[QUOTE=hehe;21852329]You're missing the point, its 2%, which doesn't seem like much but the overall is 50%, so half of their profit is going to the government, from land which BHP bough and own. Without thinking they could downsize or pack up here (doubt it) and move to somewhere like Canada which taxes loads less on minerals and oil, the Canadians jumped right onto this idea when they heard about the tax rise. We are looking at Australia's largest source of jobs and profit for the next 50 years, Labour has made a big mistake doing this, they're going to struggle through this election majorly.[/QUOTE] Someone with commonsense! BHP are in the right to be pissed off. Our largest industry is going to be taxed to a point that could potentially cripple the largest employer of labour. Ironic that Labor keep doing things that aren't in the interest of the labour force. [editline]08:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunsNRoses;21853325]We get to choose between some religious fuck-wit and a fuck-wit that speaks mandarin.[/QUOTE] You should be voting based on the policies of the parties rather than completly on the leadership of the parties. But I concur, Abbott is a fuckwit.

I'm voting Sex Party, WHOS WITH ME!?

[QUOTE=combine487;21853374]I'm voting Sex Party, WHOS WITH ME!?[/QUOTE] no just no

[QUOTE=MrTwicks;21853379]no just no[/QUOTE] What are you gay

The Australian Sex Party is a joke, really, the Greens are offering the same things and are more reliable. But im Liberal, but i [i] dislike [/i] Abbott, Turnbull would probably be the best candidate for top job right now, seeing as Rudd hasnt done shit in the three years hes been office. [editline]09:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;21853347] Ironic that Labor keep doing things that aren't in the interest of the labour force. [/QUOTE] By downsizing privatization? because they have been doing heaps of that lately and that a leftist ideal.

now would be a great time to introduce a poem i made in 07 hes shit hes crud hes no fucking good Kevin Rudd Kevin rudddd [editline]07:21PM[/editline] but yeah he doesn't stand a chance this year if he wins Julia gillard will move in

[QUOTE=hehe;21852329]You're missing the point, its 2%, which doesn't seem like much but the overall is 50%, so half of their profit is going to the government, from land which BHP bough and own. Without thinking they could downsize or pack up here (doubt it) and move to somewhere like Canada which taxes loads less on minerals and oil, the Canadians jumped right onto this idea when they heard about the tax rise. We are looking at Australia's largest source of jobs and profit for the next 50 years, Labour has made a big mistake doing this, they're going to struggle through this election majorly.[/QUOTE] Someone has to pay off debt, and its the miners on the chopping block. It would be too much to place it on the businesses and companies.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;21853844]Someone has to pay off debt, and its the miners on the chopping block. It would be too much to place it on the businesses and companies.[/QUOTE] You mean tax the largest industry in Australia, just because its doing the best? So they have to pay for the [b]Governments[/b] poor spending? You realize that 2% isnt going to do shit towards the debt? While they lower tax on smaller business at the same time in the new Henry Tax reform? They're shifting the pressure onto a company which holds our economy toegether. Labour is just looking for the fastest way to alleviate the debt. If the Liberal were in Government, they would know that its only time which can pay of this debt along with conservative spending.

[QUOTE=hehe;21853878]You mean tax the largest industry in Australia, just because its doing the best? So they have to pay for the [B]Governments[/B] poor spending? You realize that 2% isnt going to do shit towards the debt? While they lower tax on smaller business at the same time in the new Henry Tax reform? They're shifting the pressure onto a company which holds our economy toegether. Labour is just looking for the fastest way to alleviate the debt. If the Liberal were in Government, they would know that its only time which can pay of this debt along with conservative spending.[/QUOTE] If Liberal were in power they wouldn't actually introduce much new, just wait until they break even and slap each other on the back for the next 2 years.

That's kinda the way Australian politics works, doesn't it? Labour get in, spend a bit of money, we get low on cash, Liberal get in, they don't spend any money on anything, money piles up, Labour get in, blah blah blah.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;21853898]If Liberal were in power they wouldn't actually introduce much new, just wait until they break even and slap each other on the back for the next 2 years.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly what we need in this situation, smart, safe, liberal spending which allows us to reach the break even point then progress from there, yes, it might take 10 years + but in the end we will have no debt and a fresh economy. but as always, the majority of Australians care about cigarettes tax and whats on Today Tonight. [QUOTE=Devodiere;21853926]That's kinda the way Australian politics works, doesn't it? Labour get in, spend a bit of money, we get low on cash, Liberal get in, they don't spend any money on anything, money piles up, Labour get in, blah blah blah.[/QUOTE] The current cycle was like that, yes, but if Liberal were to stay in office, we would have a successful economy and a high exchange rates, but Labour just loooovve spending money unwisely (see, Garrets insulation) on stupid shit.

[QUOTE=hehe;21853935]Which is exactly what we need in this situation, smart, safe, liberal spending which allows us to reach the break even point then progress from there, yes, it might take 10 years + but in the end we will have no debt and a fresh economy. but as always, the majority of Australians care about cigarettes tax and whats on Today Tonight.[/QUOTE] I think it rediculous for them to sit on their arses when obviously a few things need fixing (*cough* health *cough*). Oh wait, they are Liberals. I forget myself sometimes.

[QUOTE=Lexinator;21853820] but yeah he doesn't stand a chance this year if he wins Julia gillard will move in[/QUOTE] Don't make me think about it please

[QUOTE=hehe;21853935]The current cycle was like that, yes, but if Liberal were to stay in office, we would have a successful economy and a high exchange rates, but Labour just loooovve spending money unwisely (see, Garrets insulation) on stupid shit.[/QUOTE] I know it's not really fair due to that whole Global financial crisis, but didn't John Howard just have 12 years in power and things got worse?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;21853952]I think it ridiculous for them to sit on their arses when obviously a few things need fixing (*cough* health *cough*). Oh wait, they are Liberals. I forget myself sometimes.[/QUOTE] sorry, the health system problems are the states problem not the governments, its their job to supervise spending in their respective states, so if you have a problem with health care you best turn to the State Government. I know personally that Victoria has the best health care program because of its wise spending. A better economy (right ideal) leads to more stricter taxes which leads to more Government money, which leads to a surplus, which leads to more money being put into vital areas, such as health. Its stupid to tax companies at this time, because they are the ones leading the way out of this problem. [QUOTE=Devodiere;21854011]I know it's not really fair due to that whole Global financial crisis, but didn't John Howard just have 12 years in power and things got worse?[/QUOTE] How old were you when Howard was in power? besides work choices and the deployment to Iraq, the Howard years were some of the most successful in Australian history, maybe next to Menzies or Gordon as the top 3 PMs