Posted by: NicOkay, this has nothing to do with our lives in America, but living outside Australia gives one an interesting perspective on politics, and this is bugging me. Is it just me or does anyone else think the whole Labour Party leadership since
Crean has been a well planned conspiracy to make Rudd look good?
In 2003 Simon
Crean needed to be replaced. Rudd had serious potential – smart, rational, compassionate, hell, he even looked a bit like Howard - so why not put him in straight away? Unfortunately, the Labour Party could tell they
wouldn’t be able to beat Howard, no matter who was the head of the party. Instead of putting up Rudd only to have him defeated and forever tarnished they decided to put in
Latham. He had done good things in his home electorate so the public would
think the Labour Party thought he was a good choice as leader. Unfortunately, his (carefully scripted) behavior and colourful past (which he was carefully chose for) left many people a bit disenfranchised with Labour. After his defeat the public wanted change. Was it Rudd’s time? Okay, said the party room, here’s
Beazley. Awwwww, cried the public, why
Beazley! He’s done his dash! Of course this was also a deliberate choice.
Beazley, in an unpleasant, florid, blustery and brilliantly acted manner pretended that Labour had only one policy, to do the exact the opposite of the Libs. The party room knew that even hardcore Labour voters would start to become disenfranchised. Then, in the Labour Party’s darkest public opinion hour, Rudd rises - appearing young (relatively), fresh, different! Do Latham, Beazely and, importantly, Howard seem old, stale, unpredictable and arrogant by comparison? Funny that. And, what is the first thing Rudd is doing - presenting a strong clear message of what the Labour Party is about! It all seems too well planned!
Think about it.