Written By: - Date published: 7:46 am, July 16th, 2008 - 82 comments
Categories: john key, slippery, spin -
Tags: crosby/textor, line de jour
Every Wednesday, John Key does his round of interviews. Breakfast TV makes a nice soft start with interviews on Breakfast then Sunrise. Then he’s on KiwiFM with Wammo and bFM with Mikey Havoc, neither of whom are political specialists but are increasingly asking good questions.
Every week, Key comes prepared with two or three lines, which he repeats more or less by rote in each interview, whatever questions he’s asked. They’re easy to spot - Key’s tone alters when he repeats one, they use a sophisticated form of words that stand out from Key’s usually confused speaking style, and they turn the topic into a hit and run attack on Labour.
Two weeks ago, Havoc broke through Key’s Crosby/Textor lines and Key looked dangerously out of his depth (in fact, Key hasn’t been back on Havoc’s show since). To encourage people to see through the lines more often I’ll watch Breakfast on Wednesday mornings and report the lines so you can be ready for them in the subsequent interviews.
Today’s lines are:
“This is Helen Clark’s issue. The Prime Minister has one side of the story from Winston Peters, she should call Owen Glenn, Labour’s sugar-daddy, to get the other side of the story”.
Dissection:
- The Prime Minister is not responsible for the operations of other parties.
- The Prime Minister does not have the right to investigate the operations of other parties
- National’s hypocrisy on donations is breath-taking. They are the ones who received over $2 million in secret donations before the last election. Owen Glenn gave donations to Labour openly, he didn’t hide his identity whereas National set up a system of trusts specifically to hide the identities of its large donors. If National wants to attack on donations, it must open its trusts’ books.
[Update: Key wasn't asked about Peters on Sunrise, on KiwiFM he danced around to get in an attack on Clark pulls out same line ‘get on the phone to Owen Glenn, she obviously knows him well, he's Labour's big donor'. Somehow says this isn't a major issue for Peters but is for Clark]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Tara:
I think insider is trying to intimate that because you’ve noticed that:
a) Key and McCain seem to have an adviser in common and
b) seem to be using similar lines at times
then you must be some kind of extremist nut-job conspiracy theorist.
I’m not sure if he realises the irony of his position regarding the rather long bow he’s drawing.
Sure Darren. I’d love to visit your site daily. Do you always try to point score off dead children who were abused, or was that a one-off special?
But thanks for giving up so easily, you’re clearly not too astute at following comments (the rest of us do fine here, sorry you are getting all dizzy. I hope you’re sitting down, maybe put you head between your legs for a while. It was already there? Fair enough…). I’d hate to have to try and explain all that again.
Just for that wee glimmer fighting for existence though – I acknowledged that Williams made that mistake, but not that it was deliberate i.e. a lie. Hope that helps you sleep tonight.
Classic example Felix of how conspiracies can quickly grow. In one instant imaginative leap Textor has now moved from being a strategist to four local US campaigns nearly 15 years ago to an adviser to presidential candidate McCain. And all done to show my assessment that Tara was drawing a long bow is unrealistic. Now that’s irony.
Thanks Felix.
Why is it that I sense a rising note of hysteria and concern in
the conservative blogosphere ?
I think you mean hysterical laughter…
Pilot, why don’t you tell the truth then on the Owen Glenn donations to Labour. You are others who support Labour are lying.
Mike Williams denied receiving donations from Glenn after the 2005 Election, then said they were not donations because they were merely “loans” but didn’t declare the interest forgone on the “loan” therefore it was a donation. If that is not secretive, I don’t know what is.
End of story, that is what happened.
The scandal over promises to Glenn to become transport minister and then Consulate General in Monaco was an add on.
“Big money” as Ms Clark puts it, buying elections. Nothing wrong with that but don’t be secretive.
Darren,
Fine, if the case Mike Williams forgetting about the value of forgone interest (to the tune of a few thousand dollars worth) while answering a verbal question is so very secretive and evil… then what are you saying about National hiding the names of their real donors behind a lawyers trust… to the tune of several millions of dollars?
And doing so in a planned, systematic manner that was a deliberate ploy so that their written returns to the Electoral Office would circumvent the intent of the 1993 Electoral Act?
And to this day they still maintain a strict code of omerta about?
Secretive?
Tara, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s dawning on them that the consumerist lifestyle they all thought would last forever is increasingly irrelevant and essentially meaningless.
Or maybe they’re just excited about the election…
Matthew Pilott:
Given the man’s record of late for honesty and the prima facie evidence of something odd (Dail Jones’s recollection of a sum close to $100,000 appear in their accounts – though I’d trust Jones about as far as I’d trust Winston, though for different reasons) I’d have hoped for a little more from the PM than blithe acceptance of an assurance.
Like asking to see some evidence, say. Or calling up her good friend and supporter Mr Glenn and asking him to make a categorical public statement on the matter.
I most certainly do not not concede it isn’t her duty to investigate. In fact I assert the polar opposite. I merely conceded she has no right to demand an answer – but if she doesn’t get one she’s at liberty to give him the sack.
So puhleeze, don’t expect most people – myself included – to be so credulous as to accept nothing more than the PM’s repetition of Peters’ denials as “evidence” he’s innocent.
As for his performance as Foreign Minister – you’re right, it hasn’t been too bad. Just that I happen to believe honesty when dealing with the public is paramount. Funny thing is, so did Winston once – that’s what drew me to him.
Unless you’re saying he’s irreplaceable? Plenty of people on the Labour front benches would make a good Foreign Minister – some have.
Jordan Carter wrote a piece a week or so ago in a nut shell saying that due to been a blogger his past statements and beliefs are well known and wil be analysed closely.
Many people have commented today how Clark does not have to and should not be asking the hard questions of Winnie.
Just remember the standards you are setting. If this story blew up in 12 months time when Winnie is Key’s Foreign Minister, don’t go asking for Key to ask any questions either.
Razorlight, Rex, point taken there, I guess Clark could demand to see the accounts for example. He’d probably be ok with that, he has already offered access to NZ Herald. To which they declined, for fear of facts getting between their agenda and the truth, presumably.
I guess burden of proof is inverted here for most.
As for calling Glenn up, in case no one else has noticed: due to National’s agenda-driven shit-shovelling, the man probably wants nothing to do with us immature snarky kids for the rest of his life, and who’d friggin’ blame him! Way to dump on a wealthy and generous man. What a joke.
Editor: Perhaps you should turn this thread into a permanent forum on C/T lines as the campaign evolves.