Mirko Bagaric is a right wing appologist for Rudds right wing politics. Everything but Rudds real program and right wing attacks are curiously ommitted; that every assault on the social and economic position of workers may even surpass Howard's treachery. Everything is 'somehow a mistake whereby the lessons are learnt afterwards.' Howard and Rudd have been described as having the same "bear hug politics."
Behind the cruel and treacherous election facade Labor and Liberal have declared war on workers. When Rudd and Howard recently met with Bush both gave pledges that they will support every facet of Bushs' new war plans required for US global hegemony; there has been plenty of discussion and planned leaks to the press about using nuclear or dirty weapons against Iran with its abundant oil fields.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

Either Rudd is telling the truth when he agrees with Howard, or he is lying in his teeth and will follow a completely different agenda.

If he is telling the truth there seems little point in voting for him, as Howard has the advantage of experience.

If he is lying you can have no idea what he stands for and should not be elected.

The claim that both Rudd and Howard are anti-worker ignores the real issues of the day (which are usually not mentioned), and which are that we are facing the problems both of peak oil and climate change, which mean that the standard of living has to be REDUCED.

Moreover, because they use more petrol than average, due to the fact that they live further from their jobs than the more affluent, ordinary workers and those in debt will have to suffer a larger fall than wealthy retirees.

The coming debt crunch is something that cannot be mentioned, as anyone who does will be blamed if our debt is called in.

Lets face it: We have been living far above our means for years and the day of reckoning is nigh.

Despite the screams from all and sundry, the best news the reserve bank could give us on Melbourne Cup day would be a substantial INCREASE in interest rates.

Mirko Bagaric picks out four instances where the ALP has supported the Coalition:
- intervention in the NT,
- the pulp mill in Tasmania,
- the hanging of the Bali Bombers and
- plan to limit African refugees.

On that evidentiary basis, Bagaric rests a superficial case that "Kevin Rudd has flatly refused to take a stance on any social issue which would put him at odds with government policy".

Bagaric then suggests that Rudd is lying doggo, afraid to upset voters - presumably Rudd thinks they want more of Howard's policy but have turned off Howard.

Bagaric's callow argument omits any references to policy where there are significant differences which Rudd has articulated e.g.:
- troop withdrawal for Iraq
- collective barganing and unfair dismissal laws
- kyoto and carbon trading and emissions targets
- nuclear reactors and renewable energy
- housing affordability
- education (technical training, pre-school, tax refunds on laptops etc)
- child care
- hospital reform.

Bagaric then claims that "Rudd is prepared to disavow his own principles and those of his party in the singular pursuit of the principle: 'we will say and do whatever it takes to get into power'. Is that the problem, Mirko? That this has been Howard's standard methodology and Rudd should'nt go there? Think Aborigial intervention, think Reconciliation, think African refugees, think children in detention think Davis Hicks gagged until after the election, think tax cuts, think interest rates, think children overboard, think Tampa, think never-ever GST, think WMD, think...

It's a sick joke for Bagaric to conclude that Rudd believes in nothing but, by contrast, Howard is a man with "a transparent, and albeit sometimes flawed, social conscience".

There are Labor voters and there are Labor voters. Rudd's not going to lose the ones who vote on moral issues because the alternative is Howard, who clearly has the social conscience of a funnelweb spider.
No contest.

If anyone's in the long term habit of violating their principles for personal gain it has to be Costello. Rudd's been doing it for the duration of an election, Costello's been doing it for a decade. And he's the one most likely to replace Howard.
No contest.

I don't believe this is a political post! but a valuable post none the less.
I base this on his recent post
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6491
The cynical posters so critical need to read the above, perhaps a fair and just man.
fluff4

MIRKO, I felt just like you at the previous election, I wrote Beesley when he lost and critisized him for going along with Howard on refugee policy.I said you may still have lost, but you'd have been on the side of the good and just.Evil in the world happens when good men do nothing or a Party FAVOURS EXPEDIENCE. However we vote for Parties and their Leaders have to reflect the view of the Party.FRANK/GOL, you have set out the score on the issues so the balance is there. The TACTICS OF POLITICS, dictates- WINNERS ARE GRINNERS, SO, Rudd can expect my Criticism on some issues but I hope John H. ENJOYS RETIREMENT!