Why is it that even when Rudd says things with the utmost conviction he withdraws it the next day with a straight face and not a whiff of humility? He feels able to blame all of his bad-decision days on the 'smear/scare campaign' (read: truth campaign) the government is mounting. A day or so ago in response to a request that he confirm Swan would be treasurer in and ALP govt, he was emphatic that no-one, not even him, was guarenteed a job if he won the election. This statement was clearly nonsense, but delivered with characteristic extra volume and testiculation from Rudd (testiculation = waving hands wildly whilst talking bollocks). He clearly meant for us to believe this logical impossiblity. We all knew Rudd would argue that black was white if he felt it would get him a better poll position, but what motivated him to introduce this potentially damaging uncertainty into the campaign?
On the face of it Rudd insists he is cracking down on arrogance following a plege to come down like a tonne of bricks on any cabinet collegue caught (by anyone outside the ALP) fighting over the spoils of an anticipated election victory. I would not be worried if I were a Labor front bencher. We all saw how hard he came down on union bullies - more like a tonne of feathers. The Goverment knows better than to believe that Rudd is cracking down on arrogance and Costello took the first opportunity to speculate that Rudd was keeping front-bench free for former ACTU prez Combet and other Union militants in safe ALP seats post-election, and (i dont know what's worse) keeping the Treasury warm for Marxist Gillard. Rudd reacts to this inconvenient truth by changing his position and blaming it on a scare campaign. A backflip? More like and about face and a brown-eye to all notions of a decency and a fair fight. As we stare into the left's source of daylight we people who live in the real world can see the foul darkness at the very core of the ALP's being.
With this retraction Rudd demonstrates what the ALP believes: that hubris is ok if you have persecution complex. Rudd's supremely offensive tendency to play the part of victim is the perfect example of moral superiority gone mad. This inverse snobbery is a tool that losers use to gang up on winners. Their secondary status somehow gives them a magical quality whereby everything they do is morally good. On the other hand everything a winner does is morally wrong. The winners in life they say must have used trickery and evil to get where they got. The fact that they won proves it, doesn't it? This cowardly herd-mentality runs deep in the ALP and is the basis for their us-and-them world view. It would seem that the very idea that some people wins and some people lose in life is offensive to the 'moral' sensibilities of the ALP. Indeed, the ALP believes this whole-heartedly, unless the person who wins was previously a loser like the ALP, in which case victory becomes a moral right, anything to achieve that victory is permitted, and the mercilessness they exibit when they win is justice itself. To a leftie might is right, as long as it is preceded by suffering.
Or should I say the perception of suffering. Any leftie with a persecution complex feels perfectly justified in treating anyone who disagrees with them like shit. I bet Rudd felt no guilt at all about confining National Party-linked QLD public servants to the gulag during his time under Goss, but we all know he feels the National Party is guilty of a smear campaign if they say he is too weak to lead people with differing opinions. Rudd's moral double-standard is the proof that he is too weak to stand up to the honest criticism, and the rest, that a PM should expect.
What can we expect if Rudd becomes PM? A return of the Left and their attempts to drill a victim ethos into, and thereby weaken, all of society - a nation of Kevin Rudds, that's what! Oh mighty electorate, please have more mercy than he of whom I speak. Spare us this terrible fate.
