Whatever way you look at it, what Brash said (as you quote above) *meant* that he went easy on Clark. Surely you can see that? If not, what is the difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases?

Yes that’s politically unsophisticated. Sorry. I couldn’t care less. Nor do I care about his suit, or his baldness, or his soft voice, or how hot his wife is, why he left his ex, or whether he got caned at school and whether he liked it. It’s got stuff-all to do with anything that matters to me.

By his own account, Mr Brash is ‘mainstream’ in large measure because he is a Presbyterian.

Do not underestimate the jealous regard – among many in this caucus – for the honour of their own non-Presbyterian backgrounds. Their leader, Mr Brash, (in a queer tactical manoeuvre) set this odd precedent – not they. But they will have noticed, certainly. If you have been educated by Jesuits or Marists (or Columbans etc), the stakes are always higher. There is a long game, an end game, and a deep game. Few of these MPs would deeply desire that Mr Brash succeed (if not for these reasons, perhaps then for the undemocratic manner of his selection as an MP and his wresting of the party leadership out of their hands).

Ben Wilson would be politically unsophisticated to believe otherwise.

It’s not about policy, it’s about presentation, and Don is useless at it.

Maybe the Nats are playing a deep game and put him up because they don’t really want to win this time?

And apologies if this goes up twice – sometimes I keep getting asked to re-enter the security code then find the first post has gone anyhow…

Don ,just a hint dont put your job on the line over such a small thing.
At this rate DB will be rolled 6 months after becoming PM , coming close to beating Mike Moores record for shortest tenure

Not that any of this matters one whit to who is the better leader. But it does kind of show what a risky call it is putting an unblooded old bureaucrat in charge of the major opposition party.

Sure he got a bounce after Orewa. Any clown running the National party should be able to get over 30% popularity out of sheer party loyalty, which just shows how talentless the current Nats are. Now they’re gathering in all the support that would usually go to their coalition partners, and will lose the election again. But at least Brash will look on paper like he’s acheived something.

And he will have – he’ll have killed off ACT and half of NZ First. A ‘tactical’ victory for the ‘left’ if you want to call a Labour/Green coalition that, although ‘centrist old-sk00l’ will probably be how it will look in the future.

Craig it’s lovely to see that you are able to take an offhand comment about Helens ability to thrash Don in debate and immediately transfer it to somehow being my definition of leadership. It shows spactacular talent on your part, since nothing in my post was refering to leadership and how I define it. Well done and many hugs.:-)

However, In case you’re having issues with context I was refering to the sheer idiocy of his comments especially when taking his opponent into consideration. It’s quite obvious Helen is a strong character, whether you like her or not.

As for defining leadership qualities, yes I do think strength and the ability to hold ones own in debate are desirable traits. I’d be bitterly disappointed with a PM who can’t stand his/her ground when necessary, and then proceeds to make lame excuses for it.:-)

At the moment Don comes across like a nice, mild stamp collector from Glenfield, not as a possible Prime Minister.

Think of how successfuly Bush Snr was painted as a wimp, even though he was a respected combatant in WW2. Think of how his draft-dodging son managed to get painted as a warrior, even though he is anything but. It’s not about policy: in the TV age it’s about how you project, and whoever is doing Don’s media training should be made to hand their fees back.

He comes across as nice, inoffensive, mild, and like a fuddy-duddy.Getting angry with me for saying so won’t change that.

Put the best spin you like on Dons comments, the fact he said anything at all so clumsy is a recuurent pattern. The previous week it was I am a listener , Im mean leader comments, there is his support for civil unions which he voted fo and then against. An endless list of gaffes , but there will be more, and just as you lot feasted on Helen over the painting ,the Doone resignation its a fact of political life.
In theory its all right to let Gerry cover for you in parliament but Don is a poor communicator of policy to the general public. I personally think he is just fine and he certainly gives Kim Hill a run for her money.
I can go back through the archives to see the hell Jenny Shipley got over what she said when she should have shut up, so jenny solved that problem by hiding from open press conferences and letting the tame journos from the morning dailies tell everybody what she could have said .
next week it will be a new Don gaffe- let the tumbrills roll.

I’m just pointing out the need for any politician to look like a strong leader these days, when elections are by and large won through TV, not detailed policy analysis by wonks who spend all day on the net.

Think of how the first Pres Bush, a genuine war hero, was (successfully) painted as a wimp, and how his son, definitly not martial in any sense, got the militaristic makeover to look like a soldier president?

Don can’t help it, but he looks and sounds like a nice mild goldfish breeder from Glenfield, (now goldfish breeders from Glenfield will be upset with me), not like a strong decisive leader. He may have the qualities, he might be an excellent leader, but he doesn’t project those qualities in any way. He projects nice and fuddy-duddy and a bit ditherey, that’s all I am saying. And those are not good things in the electronic age.

I am amazed at how some people here seem to take my remarks so personally, unless of course some of you are responsible for his media training, in which case you should hand you fees back.

What I meant was that the ‘good manners’ that Brash was exercising (manners which I share, I’ll admit) are based within the convention that men are stronger than women. This does not allow for an appraisal of the individual situation. He did say he would have acted differently had he been facing a man (not some other individual).

You can’t escape the conventional basis of good manners (which it was a case of, rather than general politeness). His statement (not necessarily his actions) invoked these traditional manners and therefore the traditional beliefs that they are derived from.

As I stated early in this thread – I don’t believe for a second that he meant to say women are weaker than men (good behaviour, is just as hard to shake as bad behaviour) but that doesn’t change the fact that this is what his clumsy excuse implied – and it is the implication that has so offended certain people.

Any better?