Cullen and Iti
July 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pm by David Farrar
I’ve stolen this image from NZPA. It thought people would like to look at it, while they have recalled for them these quotes:
Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister promise the House that tonight at the opening of the Auckland business school she will sit with Owen Glenn and allow herself to be photographed with him?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, but I can assure him she will not be hongi-ing Tame Iti at the same time.
Instead Michael gets to do the hongi.
Trevor Mallard: How can he, when he knows someone is facing very, very serious charges under the Arms Act-and that is a matter of public record-put himself in a position where he is seen to endorse the mana of that individual by greeting him in the way he did? I cannot believe that any responsible politician in New Zealand would endorse Tame Iti in the way that John Key did at Waitangi. It was absolutely wrong, and I think it shows-and I have to be very careful with my words here-that he lacks what is necessary to be a strong leader who is prepared to stand up for his principles and stand up for what is right for New Zealand. That is what he showed us when he put himself in the position where he endorsed Tame Iti in that way.
So Trevor is saying Michael Cullen is not a responsible politician? And that Cullen endorses Iti? ANd that Cullen is not a strong leader and Cullen does not stand up for his principles and Cullen does not stand up for what is right for NZ. Wow Trevor is very harsh on Cullen.
Mallard again: First of all, I ask John Key the same question I asked him last week. It is a question that I will ask him every time I have the opportunity. Why did he not have the courage to turn his back on Tame Iti when Tame Iti approached him? We expect someone of principle, someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister, to say “I will not cuddle up to someone who is charged with serious firearm offences.” We expect someone like him to have the courage to front up in these matters, or, in this case, to not front up-to turn his back, to walk away, and to say it is not appropriate to meet with someone like that, to hongi, to give endorsement, and to give approval. Every single week that we have the opportunity to do so we will ask that question, until John Key gets off his backside, gets into this House, and answers that question
So will Trevor also ask this every week of Michael? Why didn’t Michael Cullen have the courage to turn his back and walk away instead of cuddling him?
Hon DARREN HUGHES : I seek leave to table a photograph of John Key hongi-ing with Tame Iti, who is currently on bail and facing serious firearm charges.
And Darren jumps in also. I hope Darren will also seek leave to table the photo of Michael Cullen and John Key.
Related posts:
- Heh Cullen can be so funny
- Cullen does not get it
- Cullen ruled election advertisement for National
- Cullen breaks his own debt target
July 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Yes it does look like a very double standard. Like that time they had a go at Key for not knowing his history, but then said it was different when Cullen did the identical thing.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I’m with Dave Strings (who posted on the wrong thread). When is this photo from – after the charges or before. If before, then this would be a rather misleading post. If after, then yes Cullen has lots of questions to answer.
On the substance of the matter, there is a difference between being polite and giving someone credibility. In the same way that you shake hands, you also hongi. It would be incredibly rude to refuse to hongi someone in a formal setting like this, and Labour would have gone absolutely feral if John Key had refused to do so. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t I guess.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
PaulL,
It’s from today: http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/events.php?event_id=6343
Hypocrisy at its finest from Labour.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Trevor Mallard again: “I look around the Chamber. I look at Rodney Hide; I know that Rodney Hide would not do something as unprincipled as that. I know that Winston Peters would not do something as unprincipled as that.”
heh.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Turns out I can answer my own question by clicking on the link that DPF thoughtfully provided. Takes me here: http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/search_results.php?search_keywords=cullen+iti&search.x=0&search.y=0&run_search=
And I learn 31st July, 2008. Caption:
Sounds to me like there was more mana given in accepting Tame Iti’s status in this situation than there was in John Key’s situation. So yes, massive hypocrisy.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Just off thread a little
I’m wondering if Helen might and can? put Winston on leave for a little while till the fuss dies down.
She could use the excuse that he needs time to get over his mother’s death,
(although we know he was lowly enough to use her death to hide behind on the day he announced he had found the lost funds in his account)
He looks seriously cornered, and might be the undoing of both of them (one can only hope) if he can’t check his behaviour.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Damn, it is a giggle, the police needed an excuse to run around in
their paramilitary uniforms and a few horis having hold of a couple of self loading rifles was good enough.
Note, they were not belt feed automatic weapons as much as the coppers would have us believe that were what the cuzzys had.
One of the rellies was on the Solomons with that half platoon that
Vote:kept a mob of over a thousand armed locals apart, wonder where
our paramilitary cops were when that was going down ?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Hypocrisy from the Left – who would have thought?!?!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
This is a gift for someone like Gerry Brownlee. I expect Mallard will resort to fisticuffs in the foyer.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Ah, context. Always bringing the party down.
Still… is he still up on firearms charges? Yep. Was that fact the basis behind the attacks on Key? Yep. So is it still hypocritical? Totally.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
lol – awsome. Of course right-wing politicians don’t indulge in hypocrisy though.
[DPF: And Women's Affairs has nothing to do with Tame Iti so 10 demerits for off topic]
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
hell is that a boogie, trev (wipe it off)
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Another Nelson Muntz moment.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! DPF How many times do I have to remind you that its different Which part of different dont you understand.
Dr Cullen doing the close nose shuffle with Tame has nothing to do with John Key doing the close nose shuffle with Tame.
I wish you right wing people would understand this
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Have you got a source for that roger? As far as I know National hasn’t released a Women’s Affairs policy yet.
http://national.org.nz/policies/policies.aspx
I’m sure you could come up with much better examples of right-wing hypocrisy if you tried a little harder…
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Yes, it is hypocritical.
The general standard of debate in Parliament is very low and bitchy. All Mallard is doing is trying to create an opportunity for Key to (Mallard hopes) put his foot in it and say something he will regret. I doubt that it is only the left side of the house that does this.
I also doubt that impotent blog cries of “Oooh look at that hypocritical Mr Mallard” are very likely to cause that hypocritical Mr Mallard too much concern…
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hell, Mallard got away with punching someone in the face and keeping his job, I doubt being a hyprocrite will be any further burden in the house!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
A telling photograph of two of the biggest crooks this country has known.
Vote:Just add Winston Peters and would be the trifecta from hell.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I also quite like the “tabling” of the Cullen/Iti photograph as a preamble to a whole piece on, among other things, the hypocrisy of Darren Hughes tabling a similar Key/Iti photograph!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
DPF, if I was a lying two faced unprincipled lefty you would be starting to piss me off right about now!!!
But I’m not.
So keep up to good work.
Oh, and gazzaj?
Don’t play with the trolls, it only encourages them and you never know what you might catch!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Is it a hongi? It looks more like Cullen was headbutting him. Is there a follow up photo showing Iti rolling around on the ground with a broken nose?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Barry Soper has just pointed out the rich irony of this on Newstalk ZB, complete with the Mallard quote. He must have been reading the blogs again!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister promise the House that tonight at the opening of the Auckland business school she will sit with Owen Glenn and allow herself to be photographed with him?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, but….”
Hang on… Cullan gave an assurance in the House that Helen would allow herself to be photographed with OG at the opening of the business school. Didn’t she give him the ol’ sidestep while getting Trev to run interference?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
If I took a copy of this treaty settlement document down to parliament grounds and blasted it with a shotgun, would I be arrested?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“getstaffed (1823) +2 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
If I took a copy of this treaty settlement document down to parliament grounds and blasted it with a shotgun, would I be arrested?”
That would depend, if you were Tuhoi then of course not, if you were however from the Ngati Pakeha tribe then your lily white arse would be whisked off to prison as fast as possible.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Anyone notice the elephant in the room yet, Tuhoi never signed the treaty, yet they are at Parliament nestling their fat arses into a big trough of money.This is an insult to every the New Zealand taxpayer. Would someone insert Iti’s shotgun up his nose and pull the trigger please.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
simo, we are to follow either the ‘spirit of the law’ or the ‘letter of the law’ on a case-by-case basis, determined by which approach suits grievance industry best. essentially anything that generates guilt-driven wallet opening. the tragedy is my grandchildren [if/when] will almost certainly be discussing this same issue.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
DPF you should know Trevor would not see these rantings as hypocritcal after all this is like water on a ducks back to trev.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Roger, care to tell us where you quoted from – not just the first para, but the second. I’m pretty sure the second didn’t come from MSM – it sounds suspiciously like you’re quoting yourself. And the content of that second para is pure crap.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
What a shocker, Labour being hypocritical.
To be fair Trevor “Bruiser” Mallard was probably punch drunk when he made those comments so you can’t expect any rational observation from him.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
What little respect I ever had for Tama Iti has evaporated.
That he would even be able to physically bring himself to hongi with scum like Cullen shows he has no scruples.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
If that photo was a caption contest the winning line would have to be “shitfaced”
The difficulty would be sorting out which one?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Plus, cute DPF – having pip-squeak Darren Hughes “squeak in at the end”.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’m surprised trevors allowed to make public statements so close to an election.
Will he actually win his seat back??
Can you imagine the noise he’d make if a convicted National member was running.
I’m still hot under the collar about Mr Cullen denigrating the no 8 wire Kiwi mentality.
Did yu know IT is more advanced here than aussy!!
and NZ has the greatest amount of bloggers
Obviously, we are a very PR and media savvy people.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Friggin heck, have ever the blokes descended on a thread quite like this?!
Yes, it’s hypocrisy. But that’s what politicians do, whether they be left, right or Winston (who stakes out hypocrisy central). Why, DPF, do you expect anyone to be outraged by this? And it’s so obvious that the “outraged” on this thread are not remotely so, they’re just enjoying the game.
FWIW, I’ve always had a lot of time for Tame Iti. He’s clumsy at times, but I actually think he’s extraordinarily sophisticated most of the time in understanding precisely the effect his actions and his words will have.
He has a cause (and that cause involves himself, but it also involves more than himself – as is the case with all male leaders of whatever culture) and he is true to his cause.
I don’t always agree with him, but I don’t often fault him.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
big bruv
I’m Ngati Tax Payer, what would happen to me?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
burt – imprisonment, but not before you were sent one bill for the shotgun damage done to the ground, and another for compensation for the hurt feelings of the land owner.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Ohh, the blokes have taken my karma for the first time since I’ve been here. Oooh. I kinda like the slightly positive karma thing, hey, but this has a certain frisson, which is kinda cool.
FWIW, guys (and yes, you are guys), I’m actually a floating voter. Up until about two weeks ago, I actually was about to make the big leap from slightly centre left to slightly centre right. But National’s been fucking up big time recently by being too fucking vague and non-committal, and I’m no longer keen to exchange the devil I know for the devil I don’t.
So right now, Peter’s about to get my protest vote again for the second time.
Give me all the negative karma you want, but you actually need to pay attention to what I just posted.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Is Micky a Mason or something? – that’s the dodgiest looking handshake I’ve seen in a while…
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Penelope
When you were talking about Tama Iti you were making sense. I gave you a plus for that. But this shit about voting for Winston after slagging people off in here as ‘blokes’ is making little sense to me.
A valid protest vote would be a vote for ACT or the Maori party. A vote for the Green’s or Winston is a vote for Labour. National are Labour dressed in blue and Jolly Jim is also a vote for Labour. Dunne is a windsock so kiss any protest value in voting for him goodbye.
All the best. A Bloke.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Penelope Look in the mirror. I’m sorry but you’re a full flushing, un-risked, reconstructed moron and you’re welcome to vote for any party you like. I hope you don’t vote for mine
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:34 am
PaulL:
Ah, what a surprise, Phillip John/Roger Nome is too intellectually dishonest to provide a link. It’s here: a press release from Lianne Dalziel, or should I say Lie-Anne-in-Unison Dalziel. Yes, Phillip John picked a really good source for hypocrisy! In a funny sort of way, Winston summed it up pretty well at the time:
Now if only Winston could swallow his own bitter medicine!
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 2:01 am
GrumpyOldHori.
Stop teasing the rednecks.
You back on level 13 playing with polisy again?
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 2:11 am
A Labour voter giving their vote to Winston First has no effect on the National party becoming the Government this November. At most it means one less Labour MP in parliament and one more Winston First MP. Both Labour and Winston First MP’s would be sitting on the opposition benches with not much to do.
Added bonus, Winston First MP’s have proven easily bribable in the past and could be used to prop up a National Government later on in their first term if required.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 6:45 am
simo (65) +6
Vote:Anyone notice the elephant in the room yet, Tuhoi never signed the treaty, yet they are at Parliament nestling their fat arses into a big trough of money.This is an insult to every the New Zealand taxpayer. Would someone insert Iti’s shotgun up his nose and pull the trigger please.
Simo its not about past grievances its about shutting the little fuck wit up just before an election. I can just imagine the conversation between Cullen and Iti
Mike ‘Now Iti here is a couple of hundy Mill be a good boy and keep quiet till after the election
Tama ‘Ok honky but just remember its just till I can replace my guns and until that Keys guy is in charge’
Now repeat the mantra
Labour good
National bad
August 1st, 2008 at 7:30 am
Peter’s, Burt, Peter’s. There’s an apostrophe in there. Remember what they are for? I said a protest vote, not a vote for a showman. That would have been Peters’. I’m OK with windsocks, at least they listen to what people want and tell people what they’ll do about it. As opposed to what seems to be happening with National at the moment, which is listening to what people say, ditching their principles to jump on half the bandwagons and being extraordinarily vague about the rest. They still may get my vote, but not unless they start treating voters with a little more intelligence.
Patrick, thank you. I’m honoured!
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 7:38 am
You keep voting for Hulun and Mikhael then Pennie, they seem like your kinda people, full of priniciple and intent never delivered on.
Or is the bar too low?
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Penelope – Peters’ I think. His name is Peters, he possesses something (in this case, your vote).
I’m wondering why you would vote for Peters? In an MMP world, it is a bit hard to vote against. A “protest vote” sort of sounds cool, but when there are so many parties on offer you really need to positively vote for something you believe in – voting for ACT isn’t really voting against Labour, it is voting in favour of smaller government and more self determination. Voting for Green isn’t really voting against National, it is voting in favour of group-based policies run from the centre, with a dash of environmentalism.
So what you probably need to look at if you want to vote for Winston is what you’d be voting for. What is it he stands for, what will you get if he actually gets to implement what he says he stands for, how likely is it that he will really do anything about what he stands for based on past behaviour and what you know about him.
I would suggest that he doesn’t really stand for anything principled other than some form of “keeping the bastards honest by sitting on the cross benches.” In in practice he didn’t do that, nor has he shown any spine about anything whilst in coalition with Labour. Ultimately he seems to stand for whatever makes Winston happy, and only keeps the bastards honest until he goes into coalition (with suitable baubles) at which time he becomes a sock puppet for whichever party he went into coalition with (Labour or National). To me it seems like voting for Winston is really voting for whichever party gives Winston the most. You and the country will get nothing out of it, and whatever preference you may have between National and Labour won’t be taken into account. I just cannot understand how that would be a protest vote – just about any other party I can see logical reasons that someone might vote for (they might be misguided, but there would be some logic), but not NZF.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Ah, it suddenly makes sense. You mean Peter (Dunne)’s about to get your vote. I can understand that, at least on a semi rational basis. Dunne will go with National this time round.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Well said PaulL. Karma++
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
No Paul, Peter’s. I’m considering voting for someone who won’t make much difference, but isn’t one of the main parties, not a shonky showman. I know what possessives are and where the apostrophe goes, but you’ve got the wrong man.
OK, I just saw you got it!
The whole principle of a protest vote is that by your vote you make a point about what you’re *not* voting for, not what you *are* voting for. In this case, as I have done twice in the past, unless National pulls something out ofthe hat, I will *not* be voting for either of the main parties, but I have no intention of doing that by voting for an unprincipled diva. A boring, staid middle man (or party) is just the sort of person (or party) a protest vote should be bestowed upon, in my opinion.
Actually, as I made that post, I made a mental note to watch how many people confused the two. I’m impressed with the results!
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Lets be honest aye girls, a protest vote is going to do nothing except make your upper/middle class soul feel better. Much like carrying a jute bag to the supermarket instead accepting of plastics.
The only way to strategically vote this time round is against labour.
That means do not vote for anyone likely to support them (Greens), do not make protest votes.
Vote national for the seat and the party.
or
Vote a national ally in the seat if they are likely to win.
And if you really have to make some kind of conscience assuaging gesture, party vote for ACT or the Maori.
Anything else is avote for Hulun and Mikhael – do you really want another 3 years of those idiots?
Vote: