Peter Davis
According to the SST Investigate Magazine is publishing tomorrow a story on Peter Davis, on the basis of the election night photo showing him being kissed by Ian Scott.
This is all very silly and very stupid and I said so a year ago when Prime first showed the footage. To quote myself:
This is one of those issues I was inclined to not even comment on this, but there are posts appearing on other blogs, so I figured it was better to add some balance, rather than do an ostrich.
Some people are already getting excited about the rumour that Holmes tonight (830 pm on Prime) will show footage or stills of a kiss between Peter Davis and a man on election night.
From what I understand it is pretty obvious that Peter Davis was taken by surprise, and it is all relatively harmless. In fact from the photo I have seen, it may just be a kiss on the cheek.
I don’t think a public party with every media in the country in attendance is the sort of place where you act indiscreetly, if there is anything to act indiscreetly about. Seriously, think about it. If you had a secret boyfriend, would you be kissing him in front of 30 journalists and several TV cameras.
Also I imagine everyone there was pretty pissed and in a celebratory mood, and photos afterwards often take things out of context. If my partner had just been re-elected PM for a third time, I’d be pretty happy and doing stupid things.
To use an example of the last one, a couple of years ago an organisation I am involved with had a major league piss-up to celebrate a very successful sale. Myself and others drank a lot of ouzo that night. The next day I didn’t recall much of the previous night, but was amused to hear there were photos of me dancing with a staff member. I assumed it was the incredibly gorgeous female staff member, but instead the photo was of me dancing with the not so gorgeous male staff member
And no that is not a sign of repressed anything, just signs of too much alcohol!
So watch Prime tonight and have a wee laugh. But please lay off the conspiracy theories.
It saddens me that Investigate is fixated with Peter Davis (who is not a politician) and see it fit to run this story. I will make the point that Ian Wishart deciding to publish something is not the same as a National frontbencher getting up and threatening to reveal dirt, and then revealing such dirt in the debating chamber..
The Sunday News also refers to another Investigate story on Davis regarding alleged behaviour on a US trip. Again I think it is deplorable to publish this stuff without proof and while Ian Wishart has done some very good journalism with his Tamihere, Benson-Pope and Parker stories, his continual focus on sexual orientation undermines all that.
Now some may claim that this proves National is as bad as Labour at muck raking. Again I repeat that Ian Wishart is not National. You can not compare what he does with the actions of senior cabinet ministers and the PM.
It is certainly true that at a conversational level Nats do sometimes discuss matters concerning the PM and speculation associated with that. Hell I have even done that myself . But not just about the PM. The Coddington-Kerr stuff gets discussed, the Prebble affair, who kissed who at last night’s party etc. People like to gossip and no-one is immune.
There is a significant difference between gossiping and between deliberately trying to dish dirt in public by way of press conference or shouting it out in the debating chamber. And I had the opportunity to discuss the various allegations flying around at the moment with a senior gallery journalist yesterday. He confirmed that Labour MPs and their staff on a constant basis encourage journalists to expose the (alleged) Brash affair and also have been pushing a very nasty false story about a National MP and his family. I then asked in regard to the Davis rumours whether National MPs ring up pushing the rumour, encouraging them to run a story. I was very gratified that the response was “You know, I don’t think I have ever had a National MP talk to me about that (US trip) rumour”.
This is not meant to portray National MPs as pure angels, and all Labour MPs as filth peddling scum. In fact most Labour MPs are pretty decent people. But Labour made a very deliberate decision to expose the (alleged) affair of Dr Brash, and that did set a new low. They pushed the nuclear button and at some stage there will be consequences of that.
One blog has already published a scurrilous list of rumours about high profile journalists (no I am not linking to it), and the next step could be one about MPs. That would be a very bad thing, because MPs should be allowed private lives, but this is the problem when you let the genie out of the bottle.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
DPF:
I agree with your last paragraph, and would be very much surprised if a good chunk of it wasn’t actionable. But, it’s still perfectly fair comment to ask why so many journalists fiercely protect their privacy – and what little access there is is usually in the form of carefully stage-managed puffs in the ‘women’s mags’ – while taking a more *ahem* permissive view towards politicians and business figures. It’s at least debatable that journalists are every bit as much ‘public property’ as the people they’re editorialising and pointing cameras at; their families every bit as open to scrutiny (and humiliation) as anyone else.
I think that’s a load of crap, myself, but the Fourth Estate can’t have it all their own way either.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
But Labour made a very deliberate decision to expose the (alleged) affair of Dr Brash, and that did set a new low. They pushed the nuclear button and at some stage there will be consequences of that.
Pure National Party spin. Mallard and Pope said nothing more than what everybody in the room already knew. Brash has:
1. Campaigned on “family values”.
2. Publically used his asian wife to deflect the racist tag.
3. Obtains unprecedented funding from secret sources, laundered through national Party owned trusts, that was contingent on his appointment as Leader.
4. Deceitfully runs an election campagign with a policy he did not dare articulate to the election.
5. Then runs an intense attack in Parliament explicitly making explicit claims of corruption and theft that serious commentators acknowledge as “unsustainable”.
6. Compounds the folly of multiple ill-judged affairs by trying to maintain a transparently feeble “neither confimr nor deny” line of no comment. Real honesty means having the courage to either say that he did or did not have an affair with the Deputy Chairman of the BRT. Hiding behind the smokescreen of “privacy” at this late stage is an evasive weakness of character.
How did you ever imagine he was not going to be called on it?
September 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
logix, mallrd, cullen, clark said in advance they were going to release a telephone book of emails against brash, including damaging personal ones. they PLANNED all this and must pay a price for that.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Logix:
LOL… Of course, I could do a very simple flip test and turn your “pure Labour spin” into the very justification I’m sure Wishart is going to run for Investigate magazine’s latest smear job when it hits the gutters tomoroow.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Chitchat about Peter Davis is occurring completely outside the National Party. It is coming from a variety of sources in all directions including an oblique reference in a major newspaper editorial. Indeed not one National Party person I know has mentioned it. It is coming from everywhere but.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Logix- You are (as usual), wrong on every point.
1. Brash did not campaign on “family values”. Rather, he made a point of stating he would avoid such a strategy due to the obvious conflict that would arise due to his earlier affair.
2. He has an Asian wife, and that shows he’s not a racist. End of story. Remarking on this during a conversation with other Asians is not “using” her. A non-politician with a wife from a different race or culture might do exactly the same.
3. The funding was not “unprecedented” and the sources were no more secret than Labour’s anonymous donors. …and if it was conditional so what..??? understand this you communist dumbfuck- PEOPLE ARE FREE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. ..even unions would be if the leftist thugs running them allowed their member’s freedom of political choice..
4. Brash was upfront concerning all of his party’s policies. If you want to go down that track, the full homosexual agenda of the Labour party down played at the last election would be the first mention.
5. Serious commentators?? For fucks sake, a gang of partisan hacks reprinting Labour Party press releases. We may as well have Helen Klark write the news bulletins in NZ. When will you deranged leftists understand that an announcement by any journalist or academic is always going to be politically influenced one way or the other, and cannot be used as evidence that some view is inarguably correct????
6. So, is Peter faithful to Helen, or is she an enabler grateful for the fact that he might need to seek out others for sexual fulfillment?? Lets have the direct answers you cheer for.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Logix being wrong is as worthy of comment as the sun coming in the morning.
Look guys the rule is its ok to be a muckraker and mudslinger if you’re a socialist. Anyone else does it and its a… what was the paranoid freak out again? Some kind of vast right wing “conspiracy”?
What the hells up with that?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Logix, Craig’s point is pretty hard to get round. If the smear on Brash is justified because he “used” his wife (and, of course, he didn’t) and it turns out that the Clark – Davis marriage is one of convenience then (sadly) we are justified in knowing about it. Personally, I’d rather not know about either.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Logix shows he endorses Labour’s gutter tactics. Need more be said.
I mean how demented do you have to be to use the level of anonymous donations to justify Labour revealing the alleged affair?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Oh (and because I want to win today’s pendantry prize) how else could one make explicit claims, but “explicitly”?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Actually I think if the marriage was a sham from the start to further Helens Career, the NZ public do have a right to know.What kind of a person does that?
Also “the rumour” has been doing the rounds for a while now, if Wishart tracks down the other party involved I hope the NZ press has the guts to actually follow it up instead of worrying about their large retrospective tax break.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
So you are shutting down the ‘blue liberals’ wing of national then. Now that freedom of speech has gone out of fashion when Don is concerned. Parliament is and should be the place where anything is discussed. Whether Helen has a sham marriage or DBP is a pervert and a thousand other little innuendos that dont have any real truth behind them . But we have a seemingly true situation ( but probably way overblown) and the truth is not allowed out. As I recall DPF made a huge fuss about ‘freedom of speech’ over a photograher who wasnt allowed to take a photo at a private meeting with Winston Peters.
The political fallout may well enhance Brash in the short term since he was otherwise invisble in the media but now cant collect the newspaper from the gate without someone doing a story. DPF even does daily roundups of Don, Don and more Don. Maybe Don is the one to show that the NZ public is more ‘french’ in regards politicians pecadillos, but remember there would be no other anglo saxon country that would have kept this story under wraps for so long, which is a shame since it needed to be headlines long long ago.
And dont give us ‘the family’ arguement since high leadership has its rewards as well as responsiblities.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Cam someone translate McPhee’s rant for me. I’ve read it several times and still can’t understand what he is on about.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
DPF: “Wishart has done some very good journalism with his … Parker story”. What absolute rubbish. Is that gutter tripe really what you class as good journalism? Yet at the same time you cry foul over labour flinging spurious and unprovable claims regarding policy for sale?
Secondly, I had actually admired your stand on the Davis issue, until now, running any story or link ads weight, as you are well aware.
Finally, to whomever believes any claim is actionable is mistaken, labeling someone as homosexual is not defamatory.
Cheers, james cairney
September 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Already she is politicising the Peter Davis rumours into being maliciously spread by the Natonal Party. That is crap of course. But perhaps she could issue a categorical denial about the ugly rumours from the US, and then it could be put to bed.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
In calculating the veracity of Ian Wishart’s
stories, I usually find the following formula useful.
TT x GG
________
BS
Where TT = Tragic Tabloid
GG = Gutter Glossy
and BS… is obvious
The veracity and value of such Augean stable output is zero.
Craig Y.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
James – The Parker story featured actual documents showing that Parker had filed false returns. It was a legitimate story. But as I said stuff like this is not.
As to me now covering the Davis issue – well when it is on the front page of the Sunday newspaper, I don’t think my linking to the newspaper stories add any weight. And you also forget that I have gone out of my way to discredit the stories.
And finally you are wrong on the defamation issue. Go read Dean Knight’s blog.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
David, you put things very well. Helen Clark for years has accused National of starting the rumour that she was lesbian. She has not offered a single shred of evidence to support her accusation. Many people who follow politics know the rumour really got legs after Helen rolled Mike Moore.
Helen is now accusing National of being behind the investigation of Davis. I am sure that Ian Wishart did not do the item on Davis in San Francisco on the request of National. I bet if National got wind of it and told him it would harm National he would have still done it.
If Helen wants to blame anyone she can blame me. When she and Mallard tried to blackmail National into not doing their job in vigorously challenging Labour in the House under threat of exposing the private lives of National MPs I sent an email to Mallard and copied it to the media.
I sent that email entirely on my own. I did not discuss it with anyone let alone a National Party member. Helen is a hypocrite. She complains about people spreading rumours with no or little evidence yet she is prepared to accuse National of something without the slightest proof.
If Helen wants to know who to blame for an item about Peter Davis being in Investigate and the Sunday Star-Times she should look in the mirror. If she and Mallard has not threatened to expose the private lives of National MPs she could saved a lot people from embarrassment including herself.
It is one thing for an MP to throw dirt about another MPs private life out of spite or nastiness. .It is another thing to threaten to do so in an attempt to silence an opposition party. That is an attack on the democratic process.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Mr Farrar,
Here is the translation of McPhees rant:
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I trust this helps.
Wonderful website BTW. Thank you.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Ian Wishart is a creep, and I’ve said as much before. Trevor Mallard is another creep. Tis’ a pity those two don’t have something on each other, so they might both expire in an orgy of finger-pointing and muck-throwing.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
If Wishart had bothered to live up to the title of his magazine he would have seen this for the non-story it is. An old friend give Prof Davis a celebratory hug and kiss on their team winning. Big deal.
And Brash did campaign on the family values, until he had to backtrack because the news of his first (know) adulterous affair came out. No-one forced him to cheat on his wives. He can only blame himself.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
If Wishart had bothered to live up to the title of his magazine he would have seen this for the non-story it is. An old friend gave Prof Davis a celebratory hug and kiss on their team winning. Big deal.
And Brash did campaign on the family values, until he had to backtrack because the news of his first (known) adulterous affair came out. No-one forced him to cheat on his wives. He can only blame himself.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
DPF – I want to thank you for your post and agree with ALMOST everything you say. The only thing I disagree with is:
Ian Wishart has done some very good journalism with his Tamihere, Benson-Pope and Parker stories
In my honest opinion, I grant you that Ian Wishart has the potential to be a good journalist, and I’ll give you the David Parker story. In my honest opinion, I thought the Tamihere story was questionable and in my honest opinion, I thought the DBP story was of the same calibre as the gay Helen story, the gay Peter story, the gay Seagulls story, the gay soyamilk story etc etc. Ian claims to be balanced in his approach and would rat of the left as well as the right, but in my honest opinion the evidence just doesn’t point to that. In my honest opinion, I believe he is entirely driven by his fundie values and in my honest opinion, some of his stuff is just beyond belief.
Redbaiter said: So, is Peter faithful to Helen
Firstly, IF Don Brash had an affair, that is entirely his own business. Secondly, IF Peter Davis had an affair, that is also entirely his own business. Lastly, being gay should not even be an issue. Given that Peter Davis is not an elected MP (or even an unelected MP) his gayness or straightness is about as important as whether I painted my toenails red or green this morning. I would add to that, even if Davis was an MP, that should still not be an issue.
In my honest opinion, all this just goes to show what a vile piece of work Ian Wishart is. I hope the NZ public will finally come to this realisation, but I fear not.
(Sorry about all the IMHOs, but in my honest opinion, Ian likes to threaten with law suits).
September 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I encourage men kissing in public.
But only if they are really really hot.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
DPF: Firstly, if you think a beat up by a person’s angry ex-business partner with no further research is a ‘legitimate story’ then good for you, but in my opinion it remains far from good and balanced journalism. Investigate is utter rubbish.
Secondly, feeding your rabid bloggers over Davis does lend weight, and represents a departure from a principled stand on your part.
Finally, your comment “you are wrong on the defamation issue” is both arrogant, and misguided. Whether words are defamatory is ultimately a question of fact, not law. Also whether, in law, the imputation of homosexuality is even capable of being defamatory is not fixed, so not necessarily actionable, and in my opinion although possible is not guaranteed in a modern society.
Further: It lowers you that you condemn the baseless muck thrown at the National party (with some documents attached), yet praise Wishart for good journalism doing exactly the same thing (as he drummed up a couple of documents also). Now, the JT thing was funny, and worth running, but the Parker story? In my opinion that stunk of motives aside from good journalism, but feel free to stand by him, if that’s the standard who are you to complain about the reverse though eh?
You should simply condemn the story for what it was, garbage, despite the political convenience, that way you would have more credibility.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Well Mikey Bill…If thats how you lefties greet each other I guess its your business,but if any old(male) friend of mine gave me a sloppy kiss on the lips I would smartly give him a smack on the nose….From what you all say Investigate’sc circulation must be going down the drain.Hope not its the only magazine I subscribe to.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
You are right, David. You shouldn’t link to us.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
He calls his mag investigate but can’t even identify someone who has been reasonably prominent in NZ and Auckland politics for over 20 years? Hardly world class investigative journalism.But typical of the trash he purveys and the intellectual level of his readers.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
“but if any old(male) friend of mine gave me a sloppy kiss on the lips I would smartly give him a smack on the nose”
Spoken like a true ex copper. And you wonder people don’t want you to have tasers.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
David, the best comment made about this whole mud flinging thing was made by you on Agenda yesterday morning. You said that both Labour and National will probably lose support over the Brash thing.
I think that the media were looking for excuses to print the Brash thing and when one person started the others followed. I think my mate Frank unleashed his wrath because of his genuine disgust at his media colleagues’ hypocrisy. They should never have run the Brash thing and sent a shot over their bow. Frank’s timing for re-releasing the Bridget Saunder’s snippet was timely as well.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Wishart was trying to find out what happened in the states he was stonewalled.Wishart beat up a story about Davis to attract attention to the issue in the states, now people are wondering what happened at the airport and he’s going to sell loads of magazines.Whether or not the kiss meant anything or not it’s certainly opened a can of worms for Clark and Davis.
Once again if the pm has been in a sham marriage to further her political career that is and issue of public interest as far as I can see.Cheating on your wife is one thing pretending that you have a happy marriage to avoid rumours about your sexuality is quite another.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Craig Y.:
Wonderful formula, and one I’m inclined to apply to the rest of the allegedly “respectable” mainstream media.
Pretty much everyone else:
OK, I’m a big old hypocritical Tory. Then could someone explain WTF I’m saying Helen Clark’s marriage, sexual orientation and reproductive system aren’t public property either? Once more, it seems most of the people screaming ‘double standards’ around here need to check their own.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Craig, hear, hear!
September 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
A couple of points.
The Brash-Foreman affair was common knowledge before this – it was even raised in the house by Mallard and Benson-Pope – and the media declined to cover it.
The decision was made to run stories about Brash’s private life after the issue was raised BY DR BRASH at a National Party caucus. He then RELEASED A STATEMENT TO THE PRESS about his marriage.
Brash is a very high-profile public figure. His salary is paid for by our tax-dollars. This doesn’t mean that his private life is open for scrutiny, but it does mean that when he makes his private life public it will be scrutinised.
By contrast, the members of the media that the hobgoblins over at Generation XY are defaming are private citizens that are working for private companies who are PAID to report on news stories when they break. How stupid do you have to be before you’re unable to tell the difference? Check out the rest of the posts at Generation XY and you’ll very quickly find out.
DPF also crows that Labour have been pushing the Brash story while National haven’t been encouraging the media to print stories about Peter Davis. I’ve also spoken to journalists working in the press gallery and I’ve heard very differently. But there’s also one other significant difference between the two stories: one is very likely to be true while the other has no evidence to support it whatsoever.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Sex scandals (or at least rumours of them involving MPs are nothing new…. who could forget Muldoon’s supposed adventures.
However, we now have seen politics reach a whole new low and I suspect that Labour may well openened a rather messy can of worms with its attempted hatchet job on Don Brash.
In any case, I doubt whether it will be sufficient to con the public into “moving on” from the latest revelations of Labour’s corruption.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Sex scandals (or at least rumours of them involving MPs are nothing new…. who could forget Muldoon’s supposed adventures.
However, we now have seen politics reach a whole new low and I suspect that Labour may well openened a rather messy can of worms with its attempted hatchet job on Don Brash.
In any case, I doubt whether it will be sufficient to con the public into “moving on” from the latest revelations of Labour’s corruption.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Chris:
Um, because I think Don Brash was right when he said National and it’s supporters don’t need to get down in the sewer with our opponents? Unlike ‘james’, I have a little more faith in the electorate; and I certainly don’t share his cynical belief that the only way to beat a sleazy, smear-mongering, spin-obsessed Labour Party is to go even further down the toilet. If that’s James’ idea of a “winning National Party”, then you’ve got to ask what he thinks politics is, and why any decent human being would want to win it.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Danyl – Brash was advised to do these things by Bryan Sinclair
September 17th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Danyl – To clarify, I mean that Brash was advised to do the things in the par below by Bryan Sinclair (no one from National had anything to do with the Investigate trash).
“The decision was made to run stories about Brash’s private life after the issue was raised BY DR BRASH at a National Party caucus. He then RELEASED A STATEMENT TO THE PRESS about his marriage.”
September 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Personally, I couldn’t care less what any of them (Nationalites or Labourites) do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or toilet cubical as the case may be).
To me, the real story will be IF Aunty Helen used ANY diplomatic resources or taxpayer monies to provide a cover up of her husbands’ alleged indiscretions.
And if Craig is right about the Hagley Park story ? ? ? (Particularly the bit about the cops dropping the charges, then we are further down shit creek than I thought…
September 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Craig, I am assuming you are referring to someone else in error, as opposed to attributing something to me that I never suggested?
james cairney
September 17th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Ian Wishart is a grubby and unworthy fellow, masquerading as a journalist.
If he reported that the sun was shining, I would have to see proof outside my window – and even then I wouldn’t be too certain that he hadn’t hired a crerw to rig up a fake.
We might ask where Wishart’s money to pay for his visibly unprofitable magazine comes from. But I bet he wouldn’t tell us.
Philip
.
I don’t respect his actiojns in publishing
September 17th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Budgieboy, did you mean Chris instead of Craig?
James.c, Craig’s talking about some gloater/floater on another thread entitled ‘james’.
And my, hasn’t this thread gone south quickly. No need for panicky moderation, though. Stupidity is self moderating.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Hi Danyl
(Quote from a different thread)
Just wondering if the Peter Davis thing has anything to do with the unpublished events.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Actually, I just re-read what you said and my question makes no sense. Ignore it.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Logix shows he endorses Labour’s gutter tactics. Need more be said. I mean how demented do you have to be to use the level of anonymous donations to justify Labour revealing the alleged affair?
The affair itself is of NO importance. As McPhee points out above, it is likely way overblown, and Foreman and Brash may well have been just good friends in a perfectly non-sexual manner. The adultery aspect whether true or otherwise, is not the story. What does matter is the money.
The BRT supported ACT with substantial funding over at least the 1999 and 2002 elections. It soon became apparent that this strategy was a failure because no matter how much money they were throwing at openly promoting their extremist policies via the ACT vehicle, the electorate was not buying.
After the 2002 election Bill English, capable and well-liked within National, who had fought a reasonable campaign on a very limited budget, with little likelihood of victory over a still very popular PM, was unceremoniously dumped in favour of Brash. Brash came to the job with no record of party loyalty, no political experience and no track-record…just a well-known name. Why on earth did the National insiders pick him?
Suddenly in the 2005 election it becomes apparent why. National now have $1.8m of anomynous donations to fund a massive attack campaign. National spends all of it’s PS funding, and pays for a lot of billboards, well in advance of the 3 month window the CEO looked at, and then generally runs a series of sophisticated smears on Labour using a range of unsavoury propaganda tricks with saturation TV and media coverage.
But I recall commenting at the time…WTF was the policy? Oh there was any amount of the vague generalisations, dog-whistling and feel-good puffery that all campaigns use to catch your attention….but the hard, specific policy National’s committments on a wide range of issues were just not there. Now it is apparent why. It was written by the BRT and National actually did not dare reveal details of it to the public. They would have no more swallowed it with a Blue coating than they had done with a Yellow one.
This is the real story and you all know it. The so called “affair” aspect, and how poor old honest Don is being slimed by the evil Labour scum machine, has as all the sincerity of Judith Collin’s Oscar-grade crocodile tears on Morning Report last week. The real story is that the BRT both secretly bought the National caucas leadership and a raft of still undisclosed policies. And Diane Foreman is the irrefutable link. She is the Deputy Chairman of that outfit is she not? That is the real story that demolishes “honest Don’s” credibility once and for all.
National went to the 2005 election with secret funding, and concealed policies intending to deceive the electorate. (It is very possible that the so-called “leaked emails” will prove this conjecture.) By contrast, and it an ironic one, the pledge card that has gotten Labour into so much strife, explicity detailed their policy commitments to the electorate.
The Parliamentary convention about keeping private lives private has two exceptions:
1. When it becomes a matter of hypocrisy. ie a politician claims one thing, and is shown to have acted the opposite. (ie he promotes family values and honesty, and attacks his opposition on those points)
OR
2. When it can be shown to have an impact on his political role. ( ie the matter reveals clandestine influences or creates the potential for blackmail)
Brash’s close connection with Foreman fails BOTH of these tests.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Logix,
Saw the long post, scrolled to the bottom, saw your name, then switched off. Yawn!
September 17th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
On the money Logix,and I cannot wait to see the tories put to the sword with this.Oh they will squeal but what you have just posted is a self evident truth,never mind the tory arsewipes here will not accept it ,none of them are up the bullshit tree far enough to be entrusted with the true agenda.What about it DPF and craig and co.I just cannot wait till the emails start to emerge.This is going to be a hoot.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
If what Logix says is on the money, it’s not going to be a hoot, it’s going to be sickening.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Next cab off the rank? Kiwi MP Reveals Dark Secret
September 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
So faced with a well funded National Party the Labour Party steals from the tax payer. It screws down the parliamentary funding for electorate spending, it blows the legal limit on election spending (something it conveniently ignores) just to stay compeditive. Even when spending limits are imposed the Labour Party just ignores them with money it was NOT entitled to. Furthmore the Labour Party its-self has been the benficiary of business support but it will be a long long time before the Labour Party gets money from that source – if ever again.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
DPF – what a load of shit, Peter Davis is the husband of the Prime Minister of NZ, this puts him into a category that needs a certain level of decorum, if this person has done nothing to embarrass the position of NZ’s leader, then there isn’t an issue.
As a NZer I deserve to know that nothing has happened here to embarrass this country, if it has then I’d expect very, very swift action. If not then I’d expect the person that started the rumor to be dragged across broken glass, to often a bullshit story has been started with “It was reported that” but as I said this needs to be answered, not hidden on a shelf behind PC sexual acceptability.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
To assist people unable to identify the difference between adultery/extra-marital sex with a couple who have careers.
Adultery is by defintion, sex between a married women and a man not her husband. Some confuse it with all extra-marital sex in general, which can include bi-sexuality by either party or sex between a single woman and the married male.
It was originally a matter of ensuring that inheritance passed on legitimately via the male line of the husband. Today it’s seen as an issue of relationship fidelity.
Thus in the modern sense, the issue is one of trust. The trust required to build a secure basis for family and partnership unto death.
Many have prepared the way for the Investigate style slurs on Labour politicos of the right wing media (many repeat and invent urban mythical events).
There was an age before feminism and yet after the vote to women, when women were either wives and mothers or women who were either failures/spinsters or with a successful career. With the age of feminism, it was fashionable to (try to) be a career woman and be a wife and mother. Have it all, as an equal. However some realised being a wife and mother involved certain compromises/responsibilities (and inevitably meant the risk of the glass ceiling). Thus would rather focus on having a successful career – not by being a spinster as it were, but by not being a wife and mother. Thus living with a partner without marrying them, so children would not be expected and thus they would be taken seriously in their career.
One particular woman of this sort, had to compromise this somewhat by formalising a relationship with another career professional, for the sake of her very career (because of which one it was).
One doubts that all those people who chose career over children, then or now, did so because they were/are not heterosexual. But when people suggest there is a link, one can assume they have a political motive.
Investigate is declarative of it’s own prejudicies and obsessions in it’s coverage of such issues. Others also have political motives, their support of other political parties.
Society has it’s traditions of marginalising people based on their standing. Of course there is a difference between the issue of actual behaviour (if one presumes it has any part in public discourse) and the attempt to imply people are of a certain minority profile to incite a popular discrimination against them (exploiting a woman choosing not to have children, as the basis for some basis for personal attack about her sexuality and marriage).
Suffrage and feminism, how far have we come?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Uh huh. So if National has nothing to do with spreading the Peter Davis rumours, why does the Sunday Star Times report:
“Brash has attacked Prime Minister Helen Clark’s personal integrity, accusing her of corruption and sleaze. He has also been prepared to pass on rumours about Clark’s husband Peter Davis”
So much for the hypocritical Dr Brash’s moral high ground – just days after telling National MPs not to dish the dirt, he’s at it himself.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Logix, don’t look now, but there’s a boogeyman under your bed.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Logix raises something that the media should investigate. The influence of inidentified source money on political leadership (money for MP’s caucus voting services), as well as policy consequent from this.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Kate,
You should have added that the SST journo presented no evidence what so ever for the allegation the Brash is behind the spreading of rumour about Davis……
September 17th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
if labour has any sense they will hold the emails ’till just before the next election…
as a king-hit then….(tee-hee..)
‘cos even if (as expected by everyone but him)brash has gone..the rest of those that were there and past of that will be irrevocavbly tarred with that brush..
(i mean..why waste such good ammunition on an already terminal combover kid/’swordsman’..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
James C.:
There’s a lot of James floating around here, and please accept my apology if I got you mixed up with someone else.
. D’oh… I also hope nobody things I’m the Craig twittering on about… well, I don’t want to even repeat that.
Kate:
I’ve got a copy of the Sunday Star-Times in front of me – and I’m not suprised you failed to note that you quoted Anthony Hubbard’s opinion piece which is rather heavily loaded with editorialising, unsourced speculation and not a lot of specifics. I can understand why this didn’t run in the NEWS section where the conventions of news ‘reporting’ are at least notionally observed. What a lying little hypocrite YOU are Kate – but this seems to be the standard m.o. for Labour hacks.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Cheers Craig, I found the one you’re referring to on another thread, and my word, what a special boy he is.
phil u, if labour has emails about private lives they should simply burn them. Any commentator with a shred of decency should use this opportunity to keep their mouths firmly shut on all matters private, and show themselves to be above it. There are plenty of sleaze-mongers showing their true colours at present, in my mind a bit of decency would resonate with he electorate.
cheers, james cairney
September 17th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
And if Craig is right about the Hagley Park story ? ? ? (Particularly the bit about the cops dropping the charges, then we are further down shit creek than I thought…
Not Craig, Chris, whoever he might be …
The Davis story comes in many flavours and a range of locations: classically apocryphal, in other words. Wishart chased it but failed to stand it up and had to make do with the bullshit “kiss” story. This all represents perhaps the nastiest whispering campaign about an MP’s spouse in our political history.
As DPF says, MPs trade in gossip, but I don’t think there’s any proof National has tried to shop this to the press. But two different Herald stories yesterday claimed that Mallard and other MPs went on the warpath against Brash because they *thought* National had been pushing the story to the media, after Clark had the story put to her on camera by a TVNZ reporter.
What a mess.
Cheers,
RB
September 17th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
The idiocy of this pretty much confirms for me that Wishart is not working for National. Take a moment to compare the two rumours and you can’t avoid the conclusion that the Davis rumour is bad for National. Why? Three reasons.
One, Davis can credibly deny it and will/has.
Two, he will not be contradicted by anyone.
Three, he’s not elected to anything and though he may not be as sympathetic a character as the scorned wife, eventually someone will point out that no one is talking about Brash’s wife’s behaviour – it’s the elected Leader of the National Party that’s under scrutiny, not his spouse.
Brash’s position is the opposite in every respect. The contrast must surely be drawn by the media?
If Wishart is hoping to achieve something for National, this will not assist. If he’s backed by National, his patron is a fool.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Three questions:
1. A few months ago a rugby player (can’t remember if it was Super 14 or what) was seen on TV kissing one of his team mates after he scored a try. Now, did the media or anyone question this guy’s sexuality?
2. Why has it taken “Investigate” till now to publish the pics of Peter Davis? How come no one else noticed this incident before? (And why was it not a concern back then?)
3. I notice thru the media , that the only political people “Investigate” have investigated are Benson-Pope, Tamihere, and Parker. Is that correct? Have they investigated other politicans? if so, who are they?
Thanks.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Hi “Anon”
I refer to your comment: “The decision was made to run stories about Brash’s private life after the issue was raised BY DR BRASH at a National Party caucus. He then RELEASED A STATEMENT TO THE PRESS about his marriage.”
I am not denying this.
However, it does not change the fact that it was Labour that made the first use of MPs’private lives as a weapon in this instance.
Up until last week, stories involving midemeanours by MPs were not rare, however they rarely made the media, and if so, it was often in a cryptic manner (e.g. Metro’s very coded claim some years back that a then cabinet minister was caught doing something naughty by a video camera some years back).
It is going to be a very interesting few weeks in NZ politics, but I fear it could be as distasteful as the film about Byron I watched on One last night.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Russeel B and Paul are correct – any involvement by National in the Davis stuff would be very counter-productive.
I do think Russell has picked up as to why Labour decided to push the nuke button. Helen got asked about Davis by TVNZ and she exploded, assumed National was behind it, and let loose the dogs of war.
Danyl I would point to the explicit statement by Guyon Espiner on One tonight that he had heard about the Davis rumour over a couple of months by many many people, but not one of them was a National MP or connected to the National Party.
Kate – that assertion was made by Anthony Hubbard whose credibility is not exactly high after the SIS are bugging Maori story which was found to be ludicrous. Without context it is impossible to judge. But regardless there is a difference between “gossip” and deliberatly trying to get a story into the media.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Back to the topic of the post for a moment, DPF – I think you and most of the readers here have been taken for a ride by the SST front page.
Everything said here implies no-one has actually read what Ian said of the “kiss” incident in the latest Investigate magazine.
All he said was “Who is this person in the photo, we’d like to speak to him”.
What a scandal!!!
The SST imply an extensive article implying that it’s all about Dr Scott and Peter Davis.
Wrong.
The SST also do their best to link Investigate magazine to National, in the same way any opinion the Exclusive Brethren print on Green policy is linked to National.
So your post appears to be buying into Labour’s first counter attack to NZ’s reaction to their gutter politics. A “National/Investigate” are picking on Clark’s hubby. How sad. So what we did wasn’t so bad after all was it?”
SST ran a story on nothing, just like they ran a story on some comments attributed to Doone from an “anonymous” source.
Sure, Peter Davis may be involved in a seperate incident in LA or San Fran, but the SST were careful not to mention any of that. So lets not talk about it then.
I blogged about it in greater detail:
Guilty and I didn’t even read the alleged article
September 17th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Sorry, try this link:
Guilty and I didn’t even read the alleged article
September 17th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I am fatigued by the personal stuff, and find the toll it takes on those outside of politics distasteful.
Helen, just pay it back.
All of this might just go away if you did the honourable thing Helen. Just pay it back.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Hi David
I am not suggesting that the Davis rumours in any way whatoever originate from the National Party.
I too heard Guyon Espiner’s comments tonight.
I also have heard various rumours/stories doing the rounds in Wellington, but much earlier than just a few months ago.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Logix, so what if the BRT backs National or Act. Who cares! That’s no more an issue than the unions backing Labour or Greenpeace backing the Green Party.
What’s the problem?
September 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
The issue is anonymous funding and promises of such support, if someone is made leader – payment for MP’s caucus voting services and consequent policy.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
The flip side is the party in power using the information to target businesses and people that fund their opposition. Like Cullen’s veiled threats recently…
September 17th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
DPF:
You’re being extremely generous describing the ‘Operation Leaf’ allegations as “ludicrous” – the kindest thing you can say about it is that perhaps both Hubbard and the SST were taken in by a story that was (as the saying goes) far too good to check. Especially when it was one very closely allied with the author’s hostility towards the SIS.
Now, if we’re talking about integrity in public life – why weren’t Hubbard and editor Cate Honore Brett sacked as soon as the story was discredited?
September 17th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Amidst all this I have not seen even one blog chat about the alleged “relationship” between Helen Clark and Judith Tizzard or even Heather Simpson ?
Seems most people I talk to know about the “link” but no one has mentioned it in print. Odd….
September 17th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
They “know”, to the same extent that any married woman without children is in a relationship with any lesbian at their workplace.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
I am surprised about the “photo” story getting another run. There is a much uglier story doing the rounds and none of it comes from the National Party. Perhaps the uglier story will happen this week.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Nicely put SPC.
Craig’s comments are well made. Though it is our elected representatives slinging lots of the mud, I can’t help wondering about the actions of some journalists and media owners.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:28 am
I saw that too. But contrary-wise, the Sunday Star-Times have effectively said that National has been encouraging the story and this is also strongly implied in the article by Tracey Watkins and Martin Kay today:
The whispering campaign against Peter Davis is likely to have fuelled Labour’s threat to go to war with National, after Miss Clark was stopped two weeks ago and asked by a reporter to refute on camera some of the rumours that had been circulating.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:42 am
What I cannot understand is why the Prime Minister is threatening a defamation suit. I thought that there was nothing wrong with being gay. Does she think being gay is a slur? I hope she tells Chris Carter that. Surely it is no worse than saying that someone is a heterosexual in todays age.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:53 am
I can’t see National as being behind this story. They’ve had Labour cornered in the last few weeks and they had no incentive to deflect attention from it.
If anything, Clark is using this story for her own ends. She’s gone on the front foot over the last week and has appeared very effective. On the other hand, National and Brash have performed poorly. They have given the initiative back to Labour and allowed Clark to drive the news. Frankly, as much as I loath Clark for her policies, I can’t help but admire her at times.
September 18th, 2006 at 7:26 am
so what if the BRT backs National or Act. Who cares! That’s no more an issue than the unions backing Labour or Greenpeace backing the Green Party.
In one word…secrecy.
It may also explain why National was so keen to get an absolute majority in the House. They knew that there was no nett gain with ACT because they were going to cannibalise that vote, and I can only conjecture that the wild leap to the right that the BRT was paying for, would have been too much for even NZ1 and/or UF to swallow.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Why is the Labour Party considering taking action against the perpetrator of the story on Davis? Davis has every legal avenue open to him personally to deal with any wrongdoing made against him.
Having made that comment, I only hope he does everything possible to bring Wishart to heel.
Wishart is a less than accurate, or for that matter credible journalist. Plunkett has just taken him to task and he has good as admitted that he floated the story in an attempt to actually get some hard facts. A strange way to go about the business of journalism.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:29 am
“Why is the Labour Party considering taking action against the perpetrator of the story on Davis? Davis has every legal avenue open to him personally to deal with any wrongdoing made against him.
Sure Davis could defend himself, but he wouldn’t be able to do it with tax-payer money. Have you learnt nothing cubit9f?!
September 18th, 2006 at 8:35 am
As an employer of these people on both sides of the House, they deserve to be “let go” for wasting time. And the media, not entirely blameless despite the purient interest of the chattering classes, could find more important things to titilate their readers/listeners/viewers
September 18th, 2006 at 9:39 am
This story about the Eclusive Brethren hiring a PD just has to be bullshit. Too convenient. Too easy for Klark.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hmmm … if YOU were the Labour party, would you rather the media focused on silly sexuality speculation, or on the fact that you defrauded the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of dollars and that your marginal parliamentary majority is corrupt?
Makes you think.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Kittyclaw – please don’t post rumours about who slept with who here. Plus those are over a decade old.
Danyl – The Davis gossip exists because a magazine published a major story on it. Of course people will speculate and gossip if a magazine actually publishes such stuff. A huge difference between that and what Mallard and co did.
I actually know that National has been staying right away from the Davis rumour. Some people wanted them to do OIAs (phrased in a way not mentioning him) to ascertain if it was true, and the decision was to not even go near it as they did not beleive it.
We know for a fact that TVNZ asked Helen Clark about it. They did it so there was an on teh record denial. They did not publish the allegation and denial. Hours later Labour attack dogs went to work against National. We also know for a fact that TVNZ’s political editor has said not a single National MP has been involved in that rumour.
Now compare that to how often Labour MPs spread not only the Brash story around the gallery but are as currently as last week also spreading a despicable rumour about another National MP (which has been checked out to be false).
September 18th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Bad, bad mistake from whoever around National is orchestrating this smear campaign.
Clark is now firmly back on the front foot.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Sonic, evidence that someone around National is orchestrating this, please. And the Prime Minister’s convenient “confidence” does not count.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Well it is unlikely to be a Labour supporter Billy is it.
I’d also point to the number of National supporters on this blog who have been promising us startling revalations.
Finally, who do you think Wishart votes for?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:22 am
So National supporters can now villify Labour for anything,say, Phil_U says because he doesn’t vote National?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Not sure I follow you Billy.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am
I am not a member of the National Party, so I can not speak on its behalf.
However, when I first started hearing various rumours about people connected with the Labour party, the individuals from whom I heard these rumours tended to be well-informed people in various political circles in Wellington and, to the best of my knowledge, none of them were National Party members.
Anyway, National has got more than enough dirt on Labour already without having to resort to this.
Labour’s imaginative theories about some great National/Exclusive Brethren conspiracy are even more bizarre than the rumours themselves
September 18th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Love the veiled threats
“National has got more than enough dirt on Labour already without having to resort to this.”
September 18th, 2006 at 10:34 am
The PM is stating she had to take extra precautions because the EB have allegedly hired a PD to check out charges that her marriage is a fraud. If her marriage isn’t a fraud, what’s the reason for the “extra precautions”?
Secondly, was there some possibility of harm to the PM, as Klark’s comments seem to imply? Well if so, this threat should be reported to the police and the security services and there should be a full investigation into the matter.
There won’t be tho, because that its an orchestrated strategy from the Klark camp sticks out like dog’s balls. The fact that Klark has phrased the allegations in such a way- “I was told by someone who was told” is an obvious device to keep her immune from charges of outright lies when the smear is found to be totally untrue, as I have no doubt it is.
All these allegations show is how low Klark is prepared to stoop, how little regard she has for the office of Prime Minister, and that all that ever concerns her, all that is ever paramount in her mind, is her psychopathic greed for power over others.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am
My point Sonic, is that (brace yourself) lots of people don’t like the Labour party. Some people (happily fewer) don’t like people solely because they’re gay. Not all of these people are National supporters. To say that anyone who says something unpleasant about members of the Labour party must therefore be orchestrating a campaign on behalf of the National Party is drawing something of a long bow.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Which is why I was careful to say “around” the National party.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:46 am
http://www.tbr.cc/
This man is pond scum.
Craig Y.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:56 am
and my point is that they could be miles from the National Party. You don’t know and, like the Prime Minister, you’re trying a reverse smear.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:58 am
DF is pointing out in the post above that our good friends the exclusive brethren are involved.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:09 am
There has been idle speculation about the sexuality of Helen Clark and Peter Davis since she entered public life. Indeed she herself says that one of the reasons she married Peter was to squash rumours at the time she was seeking the nomination for Labour in Mt Albert when Warren Freer retired in 1981.
The reason that National is unlikely to be behind the latest resurfacing of these rumours is that it is against National’s interest. They are in wait-and-see mode on the impact of the allegations about Don Brash. But it was already clear that Labour was taking the blame for this grubby turn in New Zealand politics.
So why would National (unless they are stupid) undermine what is starting to emerge as a competitive advantage over Labour? The disapproval and distaste for such behaviour appears to be across the political spectrum which is to National’s advantage.
Mr Wishhart’s latest foray into what is very old ground allows Helen Clark to tag the “vast rightwing conspiracy” (a la Hilary Clinton) as being responsible. Thus it’s all “just politics.” National is as bad as Labour and Labour is as bad as National – Helen Clark is a victim just like Don Brash. An emerging competitive advantage is closed up. In sadness Labour is also mending its ways: “Trevor will be spoken too” thus the public act of contrition.
I do believe that Labour were indeed pushing of the rumours about Don Brash but were aided by those in National who believe that Brash cannot win next time for but is doing too well for there to be a pretext for change. Labour is feeling personally stung by the integrity allegations that they were personally dishonest over the pledge card issue. What has been surprising thus far is that that the public seems to be non-plused about the issue.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Noone has yet answered ny question as to why being called gay is a slur? Or more importantly, why the PM thinks being called gay is a slur against one’s character? Surely in this age in a tolerant society being called gay cannot be seen as an insult, or am I just too tolerant?
September 18th, 2006 at 11:12 am
He’s doing that without evidence and, in any event, they are only “around” the National Party because they both don’t like the Labour government. Which was kind of my point. I am sure the Hitler youth and the coalition for banning whippet racing don’t like Labour either. Doesn’t make them all “around” the National Party.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Attention needs to be brought back to the real issues. Labour Party Pledge Cards and the almost forgotten figure of Taito Phillip Field.
The National Party and its supporters must keep the pressure up on these issues. The group of individuals who must get really active are the back bench members who need to make themselves heard very clearly, particularly out in the electorates. They are not in Parliament just to listen and not contribute.
I don’t care about Brash, Clark or Davis’ private lives but I am sure as hell deeply concerned about the acitivities of MPs who manipulate the facts to protect their political lives.
Field and Clark must not be allowed to escape under the cover of smoke from these diversionary operations.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Attention needs to be brought back to the real issues. Labour Party Pledge Cards and the almost forgotten figure of Taito Phillip Field.
The National Party and its supporters must keep the pressure up on these issues. The group of individuals who must get really active are the back bench members who need to make themselves heard very clearly, particularly out in the electorates. They are not in Parliament just to listen and not contribute.
I don’t care about Brash, Clark or Davis’ private lives but I am sure as hell deeply concerned about the acitivities of MPs who manipulate the facts to protect their political lives.
Field and Clark must not be allowed to escape under the cover of smoke from these diversionary operations.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Dear Sonic
I am not making any “veiled threats”.
However, I am pointing out that, given the ongoing revelations of Labour’s corruption, including the fact that Labour bought the last election using our money, it is very difficult to believe that National needs to resort to inventing rumours.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Attention needs to be brought back to the real issues. Labour Party Pledge Cards and the almost forgotten figure of Taito Phillip Field.
The National Party and its supporters must keep the pressure up on these issues. The group of individuals who must get really active are the back bench members who need to make themselves heard very clearly, particularly out in the electorates. They are not in Parliament just to listen and not contribute.
I don’t care about Brash, Clark or Davis’ private lives but I am sure as hell deeply concerned about the acitivities of MPs who manipulate the facts to protect their political lives.
Field and Clark must not be allowed to escape under the cover of smoke from these diversionary operations.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Sorry Daryl, misunderstood your post.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Sorry Daryl, misunderstood your post.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Brian Smaller – I think no-one has answered your question, because it is a stupid one. However, I’ll bite.
It isn’t about whether being gay or not is an insult. If I was called a closet Christian, I would take offence. Not because I think it is shameful to be a Christian, but because the accusation firstly implies that I am lying, and secondly it just isn’t true.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I think that Ian Wishart has a pretty face, just throw a blonde wig on him and he would be wanted by most men.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Whenever it is said that a married person is homosexual or lesbian, it is either because one of them has said so (by word or activity) or because someone is accusing the marriage of being a sham. This is the insult to the couple.
The idea that when a couple develop independent lives through their careers (and have no children), they must be in a sham marriage, is of course tenuous at best. The insinuation usually comes from rumour mongers peddling some prejudice (in this case a political one and trying to to exploit prejudice against those outside “traditional” working husband and homemaker wife family values society – it’s just part of the “mainstream” speech of Orewa).
I note that Bill Clinton and Hillary only had one child – a token child to validate a token marriage? (to cover for their “homosexual” activity preferences?).
September 19th, 2006 at 9:08 am
It would”nt suprise me if the prime ministers “hubby” was gay.In fact given that she has surounded herself in the labour party with non child bearing women cross dressing men and self confessed male faggets, add to that most politicle appointments have gone the way of barren women since she took power I would be amazed if her so called “husband” was anything other than gay
September 19th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Barry – if you can’t make a better contribution than that, then don’t borther. Your post reflects more on you than it does on Miss Clark.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I”m sorry if what should seem obvious to any clear thinking adult offends you David.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Barry you no more speak for clear thinking adults than Helen does!
September 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Always interesting when the mask slips.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I personally don’t care about politicians private lives except for openly sexist men like Dr Brash who moralize to women as a part of their political platform.I personally believe that Dr Brash and his party would love to get rid of the DPB. (which I have never been on) I think he and his party pose a huge danger to the rights of women in this country and that he preaches like an old fart. A very hypocritical old fart it now seems. His wife must feel like his cleaner or his mother. I’ll bet he has all his money in trusts so if she leaves she gets very little. Of course I don’t know that. I do not want old fashioned chauvanists in charge of this country. Especially when the old fashioned chauvanists believe in women not only doing everything they used to do for free + adding careers as well. Then their men cheat on them like Dr Brash has been doing. That leaves them (wives)in a very difficult situation of either having to put up with infidelity or leaving and being poor and overworked. He shows no appreciation for the huge amount of gratis work women in this country do every day. E.G. The average woman with one or two children does 50 hours housework per week which does not include 24 hour childcare. Who are the bludgers. Certainly not solo mothers.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
I personally don’t care about politicians private lives except for openly sexist men like Dr Brash who moralize to women as a part of their political platform.I personally believe that Dr Brash and his party would love to get rid of the DPB. (which I have never been on) I think he and his party pose a huge danger to the rights of women in this country and that he preaches like an old fart. A very hypocritical old fart it now seems. His wife must feel like his cleaner or his mother. I’ll bet he has all his money in trusts so if she leaves she gets very little. Of course I don’t know that. I do not want old fashioned chauvanists in charge of this country. Especially when the old fashioned chauvanists believe in women not only doing everything they used to do for free + adding careers as well. Then their men cheat on them like Dr Brash has been doing. That leaves them (wives)in a very difficult situation of either having to put up with infidelity or leaving and being poor and overworked. He shows no appreciation for the huge amount of gratis work women in this country do every day. E.G. The average woman with one or two children does 50 hours housework per week which does not include 24 hour childcare. Who are the bludgers. Certainly not solo mothers.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Sophie,
You sound obese and cranky. I suggest you enrol in one of Phillida Bunkle’s courses, where you can commiserate with other obese and cranky wimmin, and write very long essays about how white men are the cause of all the world’s evils, whilst doing nothing for yourself.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
IP, I would not even want to begin to say what physical description your posts create in my mind…
September 19th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
IP
Im proud to believe in equality and a good life for all. You will not shame me IP. Not all white men have sexist beliefs like you and Dr Brash.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“Equality” is an infantile concept that only half educated leftists speak of.. you’d be better off shutting the fuck up and getting pregnant with twins..
September 19th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Sophie,
The problem with Don Brash, in my opinion, is that he’s just too damn liberal. If you had been taught to cook properly, and do the washing, you would be a much more modest person, and you would be much more likely to find a guy who could tolerate your frequent mood swings. Instead you find yourself watching day-time soaps and eating large buckets of potato chips every morning.
Here’s an idea for you. Instead of sermonising on the evils of men, do something for beneficiaries. Learn to cook. Join weight-watchers. Grow healthy vegetables in your garden, and become an inspiration for beneficiary solo-mothers to become self-sufficient, so they are not dependent on the state.
And don’t vote next election.
That’s the problem with Don Brash. He’s too much of a bloody gentleman to even think like I do, let alone tell you what you need to know to get by in life.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I can see that I’m far too smart a person to post here. Will start my own blog I think and will not let you post. And by the way you would have no chance with me. In California Right winger guys find it very hard to get a girlfriend because women don’t want to be lectured and oppressed. I read one poor fool ( right wing male’s) sad account of telling other right wing men to avoid politics in discussion with women they are trying to date at all costs or any attractive educated (usually left wing woman) would not give them a second date. Even Laura Bush has stated her own political leanings are left. Poor thing. Goodbye to all looser chauvanist old men. Hello to all young thinking decent guys who believe in equality.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Sophie:
Well, I guess there’s plenty of men out there attracted to pompous hypocritical windbags with chips on both shoulders. Long life and happiness to you both.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
My God there are some sad people out there…
September 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Sophie, you’re a first year Women’s Studies student aren’t you? Nobody else would be that cliched. You do know it’s not 1972 anymore, right?
Most right wing men prefer to be with strong, intelligent, articulate women. Whiny leftie feminazis do not fall into this category.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
DPF – it’s time to cut Redbaiter loose. This:
‘”Equality” is an infantile concept that only half educated leftists speak of.. you’d be better off shutting the fuck up and getting pregnant with twins..’
…is typical of his contributions. He adds nothing to the debate on your blog outside of bitterness, vitriol, and bile. Get rid of him.
DenMT
September 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Whilst I do not subscribe to Redbaiter’s viewpoint, I think Sophie may be suffering from delusions of adequacy.
Given her stated male target group, I would not give great odds on her success in the perpetuation of species race. Emasculated means exactly what it says.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
DenMT, I beg to differ. He’s the kind of background noise that’s easy to tune out of. He never has anything to say of any real nastiness because he doesn’t know anything.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
What was Trevor Mallard, Dear Leader’s muckraker-in-chef , doing in LA?
Wasn’t LA the scene of alleged various goings on, involving the PM’s spouse?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3803480a10,00.html
September 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
So the whole “His daughter playing in the rugby world cup” story was just a cover Darren?
That just shows how evil Labour are, setting up a fake world cup just so they can, er, hmm
Care to tell us Darren?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Careful, sonic. You may just have tempted Ian Wishart to speculate on the sexuality of women rugby players.
Darren’s link is very pertinent, however. Shows yet more shameless spin from the Dear Leader. If we are to believe the article, we must believe the following:
1. Mallard was alone in taunting Brash and other National MPs in the House;
2. Mallard did not act on the authority of the Prime Minister, and that footage of the Prime Minister grinning as Mallard, Benson-Pope, and Hodgson engaged in the smear, was faked by the evil news media;
3. David Benson-Pope and Pete Hodgson did not similarly indulge in mud-raking in the House, despite Hansard records to the contrary, which were faked by the evil Hansard transcribers;
4. National MPs responded by rumour-mongering about the Prime Ministers’ sexuality, despite assertions from Gallery members that they did no such thing, as the Press are evil and part of the vast right wing conspiracy;
5. It is now National’s job to “call off the dogs” that they did not unleash.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
as a major redbaiter target….i would totally oppose any moves to ban him…
‘free speech’..(within libel laws) is something to be cherised..
(shame some blog outlets (with purported ‘high ideals’)haven’t seemed to be able to quite grasp that one yet..)
even if that free speech is coming from someone as welcome as an incoming mosquito…
(and i’m speaking as a mosquito..to some/many)
and anyway (as others have noted)..he does the right no favours..
this premise of free speech can’t be breached just because redbaiter is a malignant pile of abcess seepage..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 20th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
as a major redbaiter target….i would totally oppose any moves to ban him…
‘free speech’..(within libel laws) is something to be cherised..
(shame some blog outlets (with purported ‘high ideals’)haven’t seemed to be able to quite grasp that one yet..)
(..”..i don’t like how you make fun of me..and my ideas..so i m going to ban you..”..(hands over ears) “..i’m not listening..!..i’m not listening..!..)
eh..?
and even if that free speech is coming from someone as welcome as an incoming mosquito…
(and i’m speaking as a mosquito..to some/many)
‘annoyance’isn’t really grounds for banning..eh..?..only libelling really stands up to such a draconian move..
and anyway (as others have noted)..he does the right no favours..
this premise of free speech can’t be breached just because redbaiter is a malignant pile of abcess seepage..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)