Hard News: Nasty
114 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Co-pendants unite!
That's an excellent neologism.
A pendantic neologism at that.
-
That's a new euphemism for an extra-marital affair that his wife didn't know about.
Yeah, but was it an affair or 'just' some 'inappropriate emails'? By that I mean: did they actually do anything or did they just sail close to the wind? Was it 'merely' just like two office co-workers who flirt too much and then one night after staff drinks they almost take it a step too far? But don't. But then have to recognise their respective marriages are obviously in jeoprady.
I'm not trying to reduce this to soap opera. It's just that I've never actually read the emails (is there a link?) so I don't know the extent of the affair. But clearly some speak of 'it' as a proven consummated event. <and lets not sideline the discussion into a debate about whether just thinking of it constitutes infidelity.>
while I didn't regard cheating as a disqualification for office, I did see deception of a loved one as a reflection on character
Yup, I'll acknowledge that.
-
How was Brash supposed to campaign without his wife present?
Funny this is, it didn't seem to do Winston Churchill much harm. There's a fascinating biography of Clementine Churchill by her daughter Mary Soames, and one of the more interesting revelations is that she was a rather shy woman who hated being on the campaign trail and, by and large, just refused to do it - especially after he (re-) crossed the floor to become a Tory, which was something of a trial for a lifelong Liberal with strongly (if privately) held political opinions of her own. AFAIK, it just never became a campaign issue.
Compare and contrast, OTOH, the absurd shitstorm when Howard Dean's wife decided attending to her busy medical practice was a more productive activity than making cow-eyes at hubby? The gender politics of the Democratic primary are even stranger. I guess one thing Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are useful for is chipping away at Hilary Clinton's 'good for women' credentials in a way that would come across (or be spun as) boorish sexism from their husbands.
I'm amazed any relationship could survive the fishbowl nature of contemporary political campaigns in the US, and I really hope we're not going down the same road... and falling into all the same potholes.
-
I would have thought that the "STFU Its yours to lose" rule still held true for National MPs. Apparently not?
I believe Collins is quietly but deeply unimpressed with the current direction of the National Party.
Labour's catcalling in the house lately has been dreadful.
I think they're trying to SwiftBoat Key - Labour are airing all these pathetic non-scandals now so that in the election year they can make references to the 'allegations surrounding John Keys past' and his 'problems with the serious fraud office'. I think they'll keep targeting his business career which is obviously one of his strong points - classic Rovian tactics.
-
Once, whilst publicly squabbling with a friend, another good friend gave me some priceless advice. Don't, she said, try and drag others into the conflict because regardless of the facts or rights or wrongs, people will usually take sides based on their pre-existing prejudices towards the warring parties.
Thats the risk labour is running with attacks on Key at the moment. If they are going to attack him, they should prepare the groundwork a bit more thoroughly first to ensure the pre-existing inclination is in Labour's favour.
Attacks on the private lives of politicians only resonate with the public (at least in this country) if the personal foible under discussion deepens already existing public suspicions about the persons public life. People didn't really care if Don Brash was parading his wife about whilst possibly having an affair. But the public was already suspicious of a hidden agenda, and a man willing to be dishonest in the bedroom was adjudged to be more likely to believe he had a "moral obligation to lie" to get elected and therefore was not to be trusted.
Thats why it is more important, to me, to start trying to get some answers out of National in general, and Key in particular in regards to policy. Only by fertilising the ground can you then demonstrate a lack of credibility.
-
Yeah, but was it an affair or 'just' some 'inappropriate emails'?
I don't claim to know. Must have been damned inappropriate to put his marriage in jeopardy, I'd think.
-
Thats why it is more important, to me, to start trying to get some answers out of National in general, and Key in particular in regards to policy.
Personally it's important to me because they might be the next government. If the answers are good then perhaps they should be.
-
Now that I think about it, Xtra's various changes have been on NZNOG this month too.
Sorting out SPF oughta do it though.
-
"...Personally it's important to me because they might be the next government. If the answers are good then perhaps they should be..."
Which brings us back to the point that National is full of potential cabinet ministers who (for want of a better term) haven't yet been "de-Nazified" after the Rogernomics era and therefore have not yet fully repudiated the whole "moral obligation to lie."
The question is can you trust people who still believe in the ethos of Roger Douglas?
-
I noticed that Herald article about the Clark entry on Wikipedia and I wondered how that was news. It would be news if the political figures didn't have Wikipedia entries locked off. But to know that there's an Echo and the Bunnyman fan in the ministry of Justice is definitely a
Sideswipe item. The sad fact is I think I might know that person. He is probably in denial over the fact that their last good album was Heaven Up Here.BTW - I also observe that the Wikipedia entry on the Red Mosque in Pakistan has been cleaned up a lot. In the immediate aftermath of the siege and ensuing bloodbath triggered when Pakistan troops stormed the mosque to quell a rebellion by student Islamists a couple of months ago, it was an absolute mess. It contained ungrammatical and hysterical accounts and it restores a semblance of faith in Wikipedia that it has scrubbed up rather well.
-
If Obama wins the nomination I'm not sure I like his chances of surviving the presidential campaign.
He's not going to get the nomination, the question is whether he'll be HRC's running mate.
-
I noticed that Herald article about the Clark entry on Wikipedia and I wondered how that was news. It would be news if the political figures didn't have Wikipedia entries locked off.
Yeah, come to think of it "John Key's wiki isn't being vandalised hardly at all" is much more of a story than "John Key's wiki has been vandalised." It's actually quite interesting ...
But to know that there's an Echo and the Bunnymen fan in the ministry of Justice is definitely a
Sideswipe item.There are similar odd little insights in the Wiki Scanner records for Treasury and the Reserve Bank and various big corporations. It would be a shame if it was put to an end. So long as it's not taking too much work time, people sharing knowledge is a good thing.
-
thats a bit of a confusing email response from collins.
I take it your comments were "pro diversity" so your comments against her are being portrayed by her as you being anti diversity because you were against her cos she was against diversity.........hang on I got to sit down, oh, ok, I got it now, she's a politician
nice spin.
-
Which brings us back to the point that National is full of potential cabinet ministers who (for want of a better term) haven't yet been "de-Nazified" . . .
When the Nats start shipping people off in boxcars you'll have my full attention, but until then please just shut the fuck up.
-
I'm so glad the clark entry has been protected...
Awhile back the residents of Wikipedia had kittens over photo copywrite issues.
In US law offical photos of thier politicans are considred public domain and can be used. Everywhere else in the world unless the photo was taken in a public place you need written permission from the copyright holder.
I had to jump through a number of hoops to get a better photo of our Prime Minister (love her or hater surley she deservers a little respect for the office she holds no?)
I firstly got permission from the Labour party to use the photo. Then I got permission from the Prime Minsters office...
That was no good enough according to wikipedia the copy right holder has to give persmission for everyone to use it not just wikipedia!
Thankfully there are some nice people over at the PM's office who did just that, hence unlike John Howard. We get to have an offcial photo of our PM on Wiki.
At one point during this whole thing I asked what If I just went out to a 'public space' during election time and took a photo of a billboard would that be ok!?!
as an earlier poster quiped...
Co-pendants unite!
-
I think they're trying to SwiftBoat Key - Labour are airing all these pathetic non-scandals now so that in the election year they can make references to the 'allegations surrounding John Keys past' and his 'problems with the serious fraud office'. I think they'll keep targeting his business career which is obviously one of his strong points - classic Rovian tactics.
I think you flatter them. Testing the credibility of your opponents is standard politics; National has done plenty of it. It's just not usually as lame as what Labour's doing now. They had a sound point on Key's switcheroo on Iraq -- but that's been buried by the feeble non-scandals. I'll only believe it's a cunning plan if they turn out to have something really bad on Key in the back pocket.
-
Danyl: "de-Rogered", then. Because it is something that needs to happen.
Personally it's important to me because they might be the next government. If the answers are good then perhaps they should be.
Unfortunately, National simply doesn't want to tell us. Which is highly suspicious in itself, and an affront to the democratic system. Yes, people are entitled to vote for whatever reasons they want, but it would be nice if politicians treated elections as something more than a beauty contest.
-
That was no good enough according to wikipedia the copy right holder has to give persmission for everyone to use it not just wikipedia!
Thankfully there are some nice people over at the PM's office who did just that, hence unlike John Howard. We get to have an offcial photo of our PM on Wiki.
Thanks -- that's interesting. Of course, there's no copyright on government proceedings and publications: presumably official photos don't count.
-
"...When the Nats start shipping people off in boxcars you'll have my full attention, but until then please just shut the fuck up..."
What is it with right wingers and attempted online bullying? A sniffy potty mouth seem to the the true marker of an online Tory.
HAVE any of these wannabe cabinet ministers drawn a line under the 1990's or not? As far as I am concerned, the analogy is apt in comparison to Helen Clark, who has cclearly distanced herself and her party from the 1990's.
-
3410,
daft story
Man, I laughed so hard when I saw that Herald article. A few days earlier, I'd found those changes (MoJ: 3x Pirates of the Carribean edits, 2x Echo and the Bunnymen edits) myself, by simply Wikipedia-scanning "Zealand" and checking out some of the likely prospects. Funnily enough, I decided it wasn't such a scoop as to warrant a mention here, or anywhere.
As for Judith Collins, well, good luck expecting any intellectual honesty from her, but 3news...?
In both cases local news organisations prove, again, that either they can't tell the difference between news and bullshit, or they don't care to. My guess is, in 5 years they'll both be asking "why don't people rely on us for their news, anymore?"
-
I'll only believe it's a cunning plan if they turn out to have something really bad on Key in the back pocket.
I doubt they do (note how 'Wishart-like' their current rumours of something 'nuclear' are?). I think they're just trying to get the words 'John Key' and 'Serious Fraud Office' lodged in peoples brains early on.
But I've always been a big conspiracy buff, and history teaches us that stupidity is a more powerful explanation for events than evil - you're probably right.
Danyl: "de-Rogered", then. Because it is something that needs to happen.
I think we've had this conversation before, IS and I'm not convinced National needs to abandon most of its core-principles before they become electorally acceptable. I'm just glad we have two (major) moderately central but definitely distinct political parties: who would you have voted for in 1987?
And I'd also like the Nats to tell us what they want to do when they get into power, but since they're slaughtering the government in the polls but dip a little in popularity every time they open their mouths I'm not holding my breath.
-
Way OT....
Russell, if your email is out, can you contact the good folks at Catalyst? We are trying to get in touch.
TIA.
-
Labour are trying to "frame" Key as someone who is fluid on the facts... They don't believe the SFO stuff, it's the "sez this now, said that before" business that they're after. Anything at all that even might feed into this storyline is going to be brought up. And the electorate residency is a sniff of the genuine stuff. They've had some good material to work with: if they've got more, it'll come out for sure, drip by drip.
Unless they find a better storyline.
Sadly for Labour, Hodgeson is not particularly good at muck-raking and gutter stuff: he doesn't sound like he really believes it. But with Trev out of action, he's simply had to front up. -
And I'd also like the Nats to tell us what they want to do when they get into power, but since they're slaughtering the government in the polls but dip a little in popularity every time they open their mouths I'm not holding my breath.
It is not unusual for oppositions, particularly National oppositions, to present a small target but Key's strategy is risky - if he doesn't front on issues, he'll have to front on his inexperience. Perhaps though he figures the latter is less of an electoral turn-off (e.g. Barack Obama's point re Rumsfield and Cheney being the most experienced politicians in the US). Still, I can't recall a potential PM being less experienced than Key (Lange was in parliament seven years before being PM)?
-
Principles or prejudice?
DM: " ... I'm not convinced National needs to abandon most of its core-principles before they become electorally acceptable."
This is the problem. Exactly what are the core principles that might differentiate National and won't be abandoned? I went here to look them up but the key messages page doesn't work and the "values" are general enough to satisfy almost anyone: http://www.national.org.nz/About/vision.aspx
Labour's are at: http://labour.org.nz/policy/index.html
For example, within social policy, both major parties say they support strong families as well as individual freedoms. But what does this mean in practice, particularly for those individuals that traditionally haven't enjoyed support for their freedoms (i.e. the non "mainstream" folk)?
If National fails to define the above in their policy, and doesn't rein in the likes of Collins, it sends a message about core principles. You'd think if a party felt that message was inaccurate, they'd act to clarify the matter. Unless they thought doing so would lose them votes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.