Comments on: When was Rudd converted on pokies?

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:45:03 +0000

Barney, you’re a reliable ALP footsoldier, but way off the mark when you suggest that what Rudd has done in the past when he’s been in power has no bearing on what he will do now.
You’re also way off the mark if you think he was some sort of passive vessel for government wishes in Queensland. Anyone who paid any attention knows that Rudd was more powerful than most ministers. He was a political appointment and he had a political mandate, part of which was to run the politics of the government.
He may well have been against the expansion of pokies, but it’s a question that ought to be put to him.
As for Mike Kelly in Eden Monaro, do you think he would have been pre-selected if he wasn’t an Iraq war “whistle blower”? So while his role in the past is relevant Rudd’s apparently isn’t. Pull the other one.

By: barney

barney — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:08:08 +0000

Fair enough but
1. he was not an elected representative but a public servant implementing the wishes of his political masters.
2. as a current elected representative he should be judged by what he says/does since election, particularly with regard to policy.
3. By this logic the ALP candidate in Eden monaro (Mike kelly?) and the ALP candidate in Stirling (?) should be criticised because they served in Iraq when this was against ALP policy.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:02:45 +0000

So, can Kevin Rudd do a Peter Beattie and say he was sorry and is changing his ways?
And will this bit of very relevant information get traction?