Written By: - Date published: 3:19 pm, November 4th, 2008 - 121 comments
Categories: activism, election 2008, national -
Tags: national's secret agenda
The Herald campaign updates reports that Clark has just had a private interview with TV3, appearently getting her response to the latest secret agenda tape. Guess that means it will be on TV3 tonight.
According to the Herald, a reporter at the conference asked the PM if she thinks the public is sick of having National’s secret agenda revealed by these tapes. Clark, reasonably enough, responded “I have no idea but obviously it is attracting your interest.”
[update: I didn't get it word for word but the tape was of Bill English saying he was worried about Obama, didn't like his moralistic apporach to foreign relations, thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. Said Bush should have put a different window dressing on it but you have to have someone who's ready to pull the trigger. I'll do some analysis later if none of the others have, it's beer o'clock]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
r0b at 5,42pm – spot on regarding this one.
If Garner and TV3 had any balls they say to whoever this twat is give us the whole tape or go away we’re not interested in playing your games – however they do appear interested in playing games and being manipulated.
Was that it???? That was pathetic. I would say it did Labour more harm than National.
What’s interesting, then is that whoever claimed they knew what was on the tape, on Kiwiblog, was quite wrong. So did it come from a rightwing blogger wanting to stir up tension between Key & English? Or from a leftie?
No surprises on the tape tonight, but TV3 thought it important enough to put it at the top of the bulletin. Probably sent to coincide with Obama’s election, and to indicate that the Nats are nothing like Obama.
And as we predicted, Key (and English) response is that it’s part of Labour’s dirty tricks.
Labour and their mates remind me of how pathetic Bolger and Shipley were as they crumbled. It’s not pretty watching a party implode. I guess it will get dirtier as we approach Saturday.
The Greens have handled themselves really well during the campaign. I can see them getting over 15% as people depart Labour in droves. Labour might drop below 30%. Who misses out then?
Unfortunately Labour’s negative campaign has been a disaster. I can’t believe that Helen condoned this ham fisted approach.
Probably sent to coincide with Obama’s election, and to indicate that the Nats are nothing like Obama.
Thank God the Nats are nothing like Obama.
Yes, but I think the Nats would try to slide into government on Obama’s coat-tails. Like they would try to claim they are for change like Obama. Can’t do that now.
If Labour got 30% and the Green over 15%, they would form the government aoing with the Progressives and Maori Party. The last two will get about 3% of the vote. About 5% will be wasted and that leaves only 45-47% for National and its allies.
Bill English supports the Bush doctrine, ignoring the bipartisan tradition in NZ of operating under the UN’s rules.
‘Not news’ say righties. Probably not a game breaker given the story requires some background knowledge to understand what English said, but there you go.
Maybe this is all part of a grand plan by National. Perhaps they are deliberately releasing all this sort of stuff in order to make Labour look dirty and nasty. Perhaps the “deepthroat” that Williams was hooking into was actually a National plant.
There’s food for thought.
Unfortunately Labour’s negative campaign has been a disaster. I can’t believe that Helen condoned this ham fisted approach.
Labour have noting to do with the secret taper, as has been said many times by both Labour and the Journalist contacts.
I think the secret taper has done us all a favour in revealing National’s secret agenda. But it seems to have been a lone initiative, it’s not a Labour tactic, and those trying to create the impression that it is know full well that they are lying.
I haven’t caught up on the latest one yet – no TV where I am – but it seems that English has been critical of Obama. That seems unwise – see the extreme caution with which both Clark and Key handled this issue in the debate last night. Now Nataional’s cover is blown.
Yes, English said he’s worried about Obama’s moralistic approach to Iraq. Says something about needing to go to war sometimes. Oh and was critical of Europe’s current approach.
There’s also one more tape to come & it’s not of English talking,
Thank God the Nats are nothing like Obama.
What do you mean Scribe?
Which particular NJ beliefs are you holding about Obama that makes you think he is so terrible that only God’s grace keeps our National party from Obamastic shame.
Is it the opposing stupid wars? The not being down with torture? The having enough brain cells and knowledge of history to realise that church and state shouldn’t mix? Or is it something else?
Don’t be shy, the guy is going to be elected tommorrow, let us know why that is something God should protect us from.
Garner did say that there were no more tapes — with English on them. Therefore there is a but….
I think that for the prospective D.Priminister to espouse a pro-war position in spite of the official line from National that we were right to not join the war is a bit of a worry. Remember Key swapped his position from pro-war to anti war.
The Herald is outing the identity of the taper tomorrow. Labour better hope it is not Williams in a tight-fitting Batman suit.
I wasn’t referring to the tapes. There will be guilt by association which will hurt Labour.
The point i am making is that their campaign is unequivocally negative i.e. you can’t trust JK. It is an American style campaign and it hasn’t worked.
Hodgson is clearly intellectually challenged (I won’t even bother commenting on Williams).
This has hurt the centre-left and I know that the Greens aren’t happy.
I think the latest tape was released by Labour insiders – they’ve realised the battle is over, the right has won, and now they are positioning to roll Clark. That’s why we are getting increasingly embarassing situations for Labour – ala H-fee bomb, this tape etc.
Oh? So there has been no negative campaigning from Key/Nats? Really? They have been attacking Labour & Clark for a long while, and spent a lot of time encouraging Rodney Hide to smear Labour through Peters. Not to mention having spent the last few years trying to smear Labour MPs/ministers. This approach began with the Nats,and Labour has just responded in a like manner at times.
“positioning to roll Clark”
You are joking aren’t you?
And all they do is spin, spin spin and continue trying to smear Labour. Game’s not over til the fat lady sings.
The point i am making is that their campaign is unequivocally negative i.e. you can’t trust JK. It is an American style campaign and it hasn’t worked.
Whether or not it has “worked” rather remains to be seen. And there certainly are negative elements to Labour’s campaign – but there have to be. Labour are up against an ill defined mood for “change”. All of Labour’s positive contributions over the last 9 years have been banked and forgotten. So it is worth putting some heat on the alternative that we might change to – the almost unchanged 90′s front bench, the expedient flip flops, the underlying secret agenda, and so on.
Hodgson is clearly intellectually challenged
Why even make such stupid statements?
Anyway, time to go do some stuff. Bye for now.
PB,
NJ? Nutjob?
I have no problem with Obama opposing the war; peace is preferable. And Church and State should be separated.
But what concerns me? Let’s see. His plan to “spread the wealth around”. His plan to bankrupt the coal industry in the US. His liberal views on social issues. His lack of credible bipartisanship, despite his rhetoric. His complete lack of inexperience — makes Key look like someone with major credentials.
That’s a start.
Carol, so labour is being dirty because the nasty nats started it first?
“Game’s not over til the fat lady sings.” What time is Judith on?
Actually he’s more experienced in politics than key. A few years in the senate for a country as big as the US, is a much bigger deal than Key’s experience as an NZ MP/leader in opposition. Plus he’s had experience working in the Chicago community & at the University.
Carol,
Actually he’s more experienced in politics than key. A few years in the senate for a country as big as the US, is a much bigger deal than Key’s experience as an NZ MP/leader in opposition.
He barely spent two years in the US Senate before running for president.
Plus he’s had experience working in the Chicago community & at the University.
Sorry, I forgot that working at a university — or in a union — is the best possible breeding for politics. I withdraw and apologise.
Actually SD, I don’t think Labour is being as dirty as the Nats. I just get sick of all the spin from righties about Labour’s dirty tricks, which is just an extension of the way righties have been trying to smear Labour for years.
I don’t know who will form the next NZ government, but it sure doesn’t look to me that Labour has given up.
Anyway, continue smearing and spinning if you want, it just looks a bit superficial to me, and hypocritical. And it gets really boring.
“A few years in the senate for a country as big as the US, is a much bigger deal than Key’s experience as an NZ MP/leader in opposition” umm, why?
” Plus he’s had experience working in the Chicago community & at the University.” Whippee!!!!!!
Hey sweetd – you tard. I saw this link in yesterday’s comments.
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIXgJ7r2vU
I reckon Bill’s take on Iraq isn’t far off what Key thinks except Key wants to make a buck out of it too…
I don’t think it’s dirty to release this shit at all. Dirty to say it? F*ck yes…
Dirty, dirty, dirty tories…
Carol
Get real Labour are just as dirty if not more so than the Nats.
Scribe/Sweetd
Have a look at Obama’s history on one of the web encyclopaedias he’s got a fair degree of experience at state and senate level as well as sitting experience on a number of senate committees.
Without doubt he’s extraordinarily charismatic but the most important test of whether he will be a good president will be the advisors and support staff he surrounds himself with as will be the case for Key if he gets over the line.
sod I thought you liked dirty tories – have you got all prudish again ?
hs,
He’s got plenty of experience “sitting”; what experience has he got when it comes to doing? When has he reached across the aisle, as he claims to have done regularly? His limited bipartisan legislation is on matters that are not controversial.
He’s incredibly charismatic and has done wonders for the electoral process in the US. I think he’d be a step backwards in terms of policy.
Robinsod
I think the points go to English. Obama is a socialist, he will withdrawl the USA from all points of the world, rebuild the isolationalist policy of many decades before and hike tarrifs to exporting nations, like NZ.
Like it or not, the USA is the worlds policeman, and, sometimes you need to go to war to defend your way of life.
What is interesting, also, is that Clark is still clinging to Gulf War2. This, in todays climate (global credit crunch, recession) is a much smaller issue that ever before and thus not even on most voters radar’s.
Higherstandard
Yeah, he is very charismatic, I loved his speaches in Europe a few months ago. Would loved to have heard them in person.
In truth, are these the best 2 canidates that the USA can offer? God help us. I would not vote for either. Yeah, I hope he develops a good team around him.
Scribe – Key has far less political experience than Obama. I thought you guys didn’t care about experience. Even Palin’s got more experience than Key, about 14 years more.
So Scribe’s reason for not liking Obama is essentially that he’s not a completely backwards neanderthal bible-thumper whose primary interest is in protecting the rich and powerful.
Guess Scribe would be a big fan of GW Bush then.
“sometimes you need to go to war to defend your way of life.”
For example…