The marketing of Mr Rudd

I am concerned that Mr. Rudd choose to explain, incorrectly, how he came to be at the dinner in Perth, not who he had dinner with because it demonstrates a great deal about his character and therefore his suitability to be an Australian PM candidate.

Participants in this discussion feel that it is somehow appropriate , acceptable, expected or understandable, that a potential candidate for Prime Minister, can lie and treat voters with contempt because,' the other mob do it to'.

I contend it is that very argument which leads to apathy toward the political process, creating a culture which rewards the mediocre and those of questionable character. The culture ultimately gains acceptance and becomes the morn, standard politics 101.

Communication outlets are rife with tales of political scandal, we read, listen, watch and some make comments relevant to the so called 'scandal of the day' but inevitably we go on with our lives contently apathetic knowing that's what politicians do. Who wins in this scenario?

So yes of course the dinner explanation should matter to us all.

Voters want more from our Government than settling for mediocrity, we want substantial debate and integrity from our politicians. Voters want a real choice in candidates for public office, at the moment it seems we have only a ' looser and a bigger looser’.

We want a system that says it's not ok for Mr. Rudd an aspiring Australian PM , to be put to the Australian voter by 'Brand Labor' on the basis that , Yeh sure he's has been exposed and tainted, but he's not as bad as the other guy. We must all take responsibility in creating a new culture of political standards and expectations.

Lets look at the question posed as a result of Mr. Rudd's less than upfront account to us the voter.

Should we the Aussie voter embrace a potential PM knowing that he had been prepared to offer an incorrect scenario to us in order to get out of a potential political bind?

.