SM,

You're full of it and just because you spruik something
does not make it so. What you're saying is simply wrong.
And there's enough expert sources on the web that say so.
You can twist and turn things - however the facts remain
and they don't cease to exist simply because you choose to
ignore them.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/judgement-of-history-will-be-kinder-to-pm-than-tv-news-cycle-20130321-2girw.html

As for the PM knifing her predessor. What a load of crap.
She was the Deputy at the time and merely stepped up to the
job. It was the Party who decided that Rudd needed to be
replaced and as John Howard and others have stated - there's
nothing wrong with ambition. Look at others in politics who've
replaced their predessors. There's a whole congo-line of them -
so cut the baloney.

Lexi,

If I look hard enough I can find enough experts to refute climate change, evolution etc. No one seriously believes your point of view.

Last Feb during the last challenge it came out that Juliar had not reluctantly accepted the mantle of PM, but had actively sought support to overthrow Rudd (after promising that she had no intention) and had also convinced him to ditch the ETS, (which means that her subsequent claim to always have wanted an ETS was also a lie).

It looks as though now even the Victorian faction of the ALP is waking up to the reality of electoral disaster and starting to panic. I can't wait until the shrew is knifed as she knifed Rudd.

SM,

It might surprise you how many people do share my point
of view. But then they're people who actually are
capable of being objective.

The link I've listed below sums things up rather well:

I'll quote a bit from it...

"The Opposition constantly keeps inferring that
Julia Gillard came to power illegitimately.
They ignore the fact that there was
widespread dissatisfaction over Rudd's leadership with
the Labor Party as polls began to slide.
She spoke to him face to face about her intention to
challenge after being approached by several concerned
members of caucus. Rudd resigned and Gillard was elected
unopposed by the Parliamentary caucus."

"There was nothing illegitimate about the process,
especially when it is compared to the way former Chief
Minister Terry Mills was dumped by the CLP in the Northern
Territory for Adam Giles. Gillard became leader because
she gained support of the Labor Party Caucus. It may have
been unusual for a Prime Minister to be replaced, but
it was quite legitimate. Just as legitimate for Abbott to
replace Turnbull as Liberal leader in 2009. Not to mention
Napthine replacing Baillieu as Victorian Premier this year."

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/a-fair-go-for-prime-minister-julia-gillard/

Lexi,

If your definition of "objective" means "able to suspend logic" then all those voting green and a handful of labor faithful will believe that the pacific didn't work. However, this is probably in single digits %. The disbelief in climate change and evolution has a stronger following.

The knifing of Rudd was legitimate as no laws were broken, and because he did stupid things like dismantling the pacific solution and tried to introduce a mining super tax, and Labor's popularity was falling.

The criticism of Juliar knifing of Rudd was in the underhanded and dishonest way she and her henchmen went about it. Juliar just days before the knifing pledged her loyalty to Rudd and that there was no way in which she would consider standing for the leadership. What came out in the challenge last year is that at the same time she made these promises, she was actively communicating with the powerbrokers specifically with the objective of removing Rudd.

The contrast with Abbott is stark.

Firstly Turnbull was not PM, Secondly, Abbott openly declared that he would call a leadership ballot if Turnbull supported the ETS, and thirdly, Abbott offered the leadership to others who declined, and forced him to stand.