Written By: - Date published: 8:10 pm, November 4th, 2008 - 97 comments
Categories: bill english, election 2008, iraq, john key, youtube -
Tags: election 08, english, obama, tapes
More from 3News tonight on the secret recordings taken at the Naitonal Party conference in August. This time it’s Bill English expressing concern over Barack Obama’s “moralistic” stance to international relations:
I’m a bit worried about this whole Obama and Europe thing, just because there’s a limited effectiveness in being moralistic about international relations… and the US you can argue over do it – Bush should have put a different window dressing on it but there still needs to be someone willing to pull the trigger.
Rather than address the substance of his own deputy’s comments Key is outrageously spinning this as “another dirty trick from Labour”. English won’t front either, using the same line as Key.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Robinsod “That’s really funny ts because my apolitical wife has really been turned off National by their slipperiness and so have all the people in her large office”
I guess we will find out soon enough.
However, from my experience in business slagging off the opposition never goes down well unless it is well supported by the facts. Even then, many will hesitate to take this course of action because it is so risky.
Labour lost all its credibility for running a negative campaign with the JK Elders fiasco of last week. Whether its true or not, most people will simply not believe HC when she says she has nothing to do with the secret tapes. They will simply see it as a continuing pattern of unpleasant behaviour.
I do seriously wonder if Williams was set up by a National plant with respect to the Elders fiasco. His “deepthroat” could well have been a set-up that Labour fell for hook line and sinker. The “deepthroat” could have provided a signature very similar to Keys with the knowledge that Labour would pounce on it and have it explode in their face at the critical time. This went so badly wrong for Labour I am struggling to think of a better explanation.
LP, look, I know you’re busy, and I’m not giving you a hard time here, and I realise it’s just a few days from an election and people from both sides are getting a bit heated and excited and worked up, but a lot of this personal abuse stuff just isn’t on, even from long-time commenters. A bit of a crack at the worst offenders from both sides wouldn’t go astray.
Sorry Lynn – I just find the “my apolitical wife” arguments too easy to take the piss out of…
They’re right up there with the “I’ve always voted Labour but” arguments…
I will refrain from commenting on ts’ wife. No better than that – I’ll break the whole thing off and tell her to go back to him and try to make it work…
TS – slagging off the opposition never goes down well unless it is well supported by the facts.
Bill English, the deputy leader of the National party, is caught saying Iraq was a good idea but it needed to be spun better – what more fact do you want???
Lets bring on Saturday and the endless posts of we were robbed .how could the media have got it so wrong?, the rolling of Key and replacement with English etc etc
And them start having a sensible debate on how we are going to get our rivers and lakes clean enough to swim in or how to have safe healthy food in our shops or even the provision of warm dry homes
You know stuff that really matters
I like Trevor. He was a very good Minister of Education. And he always fronted up. Unlike the Nats.
And thanks Lynn for moderating. Unlike David Farrar and those extremely offensive anti-Helen comments on Kiwiblog.
Robinsod
Keeping in mind this woman is crazy enough to be married to you Robinsod… If intelligent men don’t attract her interest then it’s probably in your best interest to just nod and agree with her that John is slippery.
lprent
With all due respect may I suggest that you delegate moderation duties while you get a good nights rest, much of what infuriates you today may not be so bad tomorrow.
It’s hard to say who’s more absurd on this blog over the last couple of days the posts or the commenters I find myself looking forward to a post from Eve on 911.
Janet in the long list of MPs who are a waste of space Trevor Mallard is towards the top of the list.
watchout bill english…you have a whole lot of idiots sticking up for you.
they are making you look even more than stupid than usual
if you are not careful you will be declared inane
btw
where’s hooton?
Redrave: thank you for your response. I do agree that parties have underlying principles. I find it amusing that Labour veer between saying “you know what you’ll get with National” and “they’ve got a secret agenda!”. Those seem contradictory to me.
And if there is an issue with secret agendas, surely Labour has had the mother of all secret agendas, and it continues to flip flop and pass major contentious policies that haven’t got an electoral mandate. Well, fair enough. You’ve got to govern and that’s politics. But really, it’s hypocritical for Labour to turn around and accuse National of its own sins.
So anyway, if Labour is unwilling to pull the trigger, why did it do so in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq? We have had military casualties under Labour, and pretending that we haven’t dishonours those who were willing to “pull the trigger” and put their body in harms way.
MY US election Victory song featuring Obama , the song is a Garth song, “We shall be free”
http://mediasportandotherrantings.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-and-democratic-convention.html
Good luck, Obama, the world is waiting.
http://mediasportandotherrantings.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-and-democratic-convention.html
Apart from the sinister content of Mr English’s comments I’m concerned, very concerned, that we have a person who wants to be prime minister who is stupid enough to voice comments like that. But I’m also concerned that he is comfortable in assuming that his audience of National party members will be uncritically accepting of such comments.That’s the scary part.
Robinsod: “Bill English, the deputy leader of the National party, is caught saying Iraq was a good idea but it needed to be spun better – what more fact do you want???”
I think this statement just shows that English has an opinion about something. So what? It is still a free country isn’t it? Anyway, as I mentioned previously, the Williams fiasco has tainted any of this sort of stuff in people’s minds.
My comment was more about the Labour marketing strategy generally.
Slagging off the opposition is almost always a bad idea for the following reasons:
If brand A says “don’t touch brand B. Its terrible”, it is likely to evoke the following responses in the recipient:
1. Suspicion of brand A because of perceived vested interests in slagging brand B.
2. Sympathy for brand B due to perceived unfairness by brand A.
3. Curiousity about brand B, to see if it is as bad as what brand A is saying.
I believe the Labour campaign is having exactly this effect. That is why I think they have been very poorly advised in their marketing campaign. All Labour is doing IMO is working for National.
Let compare some notes here.
McCain has run a wholly negative campaign against Obama. We will see on Thursday morning that this, along with his inept campaign management, take for example McCain stopping his campaign to intervene in the credit crisis meltdown. McCain is a self confessed economic ameteur, his actions made him look reactionary and ineffectual. He will have lost when we tune in on Thursday morning, he can blame this on running a negative campaign.
The continuing negative campaign being run by Labour here has evidently backfired. Trying to win by creating fear, uncertainty and doubt is really only preaching to those who are already converted. To the undecides, this makes Labour look vindictive and desperate to do anything that will keep them in power.
In time of economic uncertainty, swing voters are worried about whether they will have a job in 3 months time. They will not give a toss about Bill English and his views on Obama. Its the wrong negative message to be focussing on, and makes Labour seem out of touch with the very serious economic reality we are all staring at.
If Labour had run a positive campaign focusing on their achievements and those areas they can control, and not spent their whole time trying to demonise John Key and National, they would in all likelihood be forming the next government. If they aren’t in a position to do that on November 9, they will only have themselves to blame. They have squandered a gilt edged opportunity.
Burt – I’m more intelligent than you. Get over it and… I don’t know.. maybe do some crosswords or read some real books or something if you feel the need to increase your IQ.
HS – I think what has been particularly funny is watching you abandon all semblance of rational argument and opt for snide attempts at attack humour instead. It’s like you’re channeling Craig Ranapia. That’s not something any one would want to do…
Rodel – yes, yes and yes.
We didn’t send combat troops to Iraq, milo, and we were only there as part of the reconstruction phase. Once it became clear that it was an ongoing clusterfuck of an occupation we pulled out.
The other two examples you cite were not stupid, based on lies, or reliant on made up notions of ‘preventative war’. These were the underlying Obama, European, and NZ Labour Party arguments against involvement in the invasion of Iraq. English seems to think that these arguments are unnecessarily ‘moralistic’. He could clear up how so, any time he likes. At the moment he seems to think that opposing a war on the basis of the wars stupidity is a failing. I disagree with him, and agree with Obama.
Who exactly is suggesting that we haven’t had casualties under Labour? Captain McStraw of the flying Straw brigades perhaps? If so, consider him slain.
tsmithfield – and selling Kiwibank? And “labout-plus”? If these are Bill’s opinions and he is the second most powerful man in the National party caucus then shouldn’t we assume they are strong influences on National’s policies?
presspassbob – I actually think the tapes are a positive thing as they allow us to see what those who want to govern us think. Or is an informed electorate a negative thing?
Pascal’s bookie. Actually, you’ve no idea what English thought. You’re just making up what you hoped he thought. And I see no reason why he should be accountable to you for a fairly mild private comment.
But let’s be clear: we sent the SAS into afghanistan to support a US invasion of that country, aimed at the Taliban who were not part of the Afghan government. I’m okay with that. Are you okay with that? Is Helen Clark okay with that?
It’s a bit rich to accuse National of being militaristic when it was HELEN CLARK who sent troops to a US war. She clearly AGREES that you do have to pull the trigger sometimes, because she did !
There’s none so blind …
National accusing Labour of “smearing” is simply mind-boggling in its audacity; and the repetition of these accusations is further proof-positive that the media is firmly in its thrall.
This is the party that has not only adopted every major policy plank in the most outlandish series of flip-flops ever seen in this country, but has simultaneously waged a relentless campaign of explicit misogynistic attacks and the demonisation of one of our most successful and widely-respected Prime Ministers ever, via its proxies on talkback radio and the internet. With near-total impunity.
Gird your loins and have another peep at Lew’s paper, or any comments section on the right-wing sewers if you need reminding. Also recall that the son of a National Party president has dedicated his life to the dissemination of this hate-drenched filth (including pasting our PM’s head onto pornography and broadcasting it to the world), and prime tory flunky Farrar has erected billboards comparing the PM to the world’s worst dictators – yet is still accepted by the media as a worthy commentator!
Utterly staggering – yet this unadulterated obscenity has been repeated and accepted to the degree that many otherwise rational kiwis now target one of our most diligent and intelligent citizens with all their unsolved insecurities. Ask the next Helen-hater you meet “why do you dislike her so?” and watch the reaction for blank-eyed proof of the irrational and baseless nature of the fear that has been so cynically and deviously sown by the Hollow manipulators.
The current topic is a good example: English’s words are further confirmation of the fact that had Key been in charge at the time, NZ would have become part of the “Coalition of the willing” and forever on terrorists’ lists.
In an uncertain world, and considering his evasiveness on a host of other issues, this is a huge issue. The very security of our children is at stake – yet the media focuses on “smear tactics” like drugged sycophants unable to think past the next press release.
On any impartial measure whatsoever (and r0b, the UN and other highly respected international bodies have patiently and regularly supplied detailed and concrete evidence), Labour and Helen Clark have performed in stellar fashion on all fronts. The poll support for National is not only soft, it is surreal and chimerical – and testament to an incredible hi-jack and/or dereliction of duty from our fourth estate. Unfortunately, we could all pay very dearly for this particular reliance on yet another non-existent invisible hand.
(here’s Lew’s paper, dunno how to do this blue writing linky thingamyjig)
http://feayn.org/~lewis/clarkvader/20071016-clarkvaderandthehelengradlabourlesbians.pdf
But ak: if there was no connection between Iraq and terrorist attacks on the west, how can invading Iraq lead to an increase in terrorist attacks on the west? You can’t have it both ways, can you?
Just asking.
Eh, that’s weird. The long post from ak that I replied to just disappeared. Maybe it’ll come back later …
[lprent: Wasn't me, and I think I'm the only one watching at present. There has been one report of things appearing and disappearing on the weeknd. I'm interested because it may relate to a new caching system I put in a few weeks ago. It saved the sites arse with the loads. But I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
update: It probably was. I released ak's post from the spam queue earlier (the raw link cause it). That would have caused cache issues.]
Robinsod,
Of course an informed electorate is a good thing. The tapes are fine too, I have no issues with wanting to know what political leaders think (it goes with the job), its not a nice tactic, but there you have it. I am certain that National would use similar material if they thought it expedient to do so and they would gain from it. I doubt they would in this election as it would seem they are trying to not do very much at all so as not to piss off any marginal voters. I would rate their campaign as neutral to slightly negative. Not much credit to them there either, and very frustrating to their detractors on this forum as there isn’t much fresh ammunition to fire at them. None the less the polls are evidence of the effagacy of this strategy.
This issue is that Labour choose to use the tapes material to try to score points in a negative way. HC tonight saying that this showed National as being “militaristic” and trying to paint them as being blood thirsty and wanting to get into a fight just seems lame at this stage. It won’t have the intended effect of scaring voters, there isn’t enough time for the issue to play and for that idea to get hold between now and the election, so why use it? I hold my contention that swing voters will not care about this and positive messages will pay much bigger dividends.
It’s kind of simple milo – when you attack people who are not terrorists for long enough they start to think fighting back might be a good thing. As an analogy if I were to punch you in the face after deciding you were violent (with no real proof) and you were to punch me back in the face should I then say – look! milo is violent because he punched me in the face?
note: I have no interest in punching milo or anyone else in the face (well maybe the prick that broke into my car last week)
It won’t have the intended effect of scaring voters
The intended effect is informing voters. “Time for a change” is a powerful soundbite, but the question needs to be asked – a change to what? These tapes have given us some fascinating insights into what a National government might have in store…
Non-sequitor milo – take it from me, seeing loved ones die as the result of an invasion tends to linger for a few generations – especially an illegal invasion following up on sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children.
bob that’s absurd. Are you claiming that when asked for comment Helen should have said nothing? I take it that you feel Key should do the same when asked about Winston Peters?
Another item on the TV3 news had voters in Greerton disgusted with Key for not turning up to meet with them as advertised as he was too scared to bump into Winston who happened to be nearby.
Janet: Scared? I think it’s rather sensible to avoid being co-opted into Winston’s eternal psychodrama. IMO, Clark would have done the same and bloody good on her if she did. I guess poor Winston finds it rather hard to get media attention without his usual diet of character assassination, bare-faced lies and race-baiting. Diddums, to coin a phrase.
Apart from the sinister content of Mr English’s comments I’m concerned, very concerned, that we have a person who wants to be prime minister who is stupid enough to voice comments like that.
Rodel: Starter for Ten: Who is the current leader of the National Party. Hint – not Bill English.
Robinsod, ak: Fair enough. I grant you the point.
milo – cool.
Craig – Rodel: Starter for Ten: Who is the current leader of the National Party. Hint – not Bill English.
Jeez – so he’s only the second most powerful person in National’s caucus. I guess that makes it alright then…
Who is saying that Helen Clark doesn’t think triggers sometimes need to be pulled milo, Calm down.
Actually, you’ve no idea what English thought.
Exactly right, that’s why ‘I’d like him to clear that up’
You’re just making up what you hoped he thought.
Wrong. I said ‘he could clear that up’, and said that he “seemed to think”. I phrased it that way not to be tricky, and not by accident. I want to know what he meant in his comments and offered what I thought his words meant. Sorry if that offends you, but as English isn’t talking I’ll just have to try my best. Perhaps you could offer an interpretation of what he said.
But let’s be clear: we sent the SAS into afghanistan to support a US invasion of that country, aimed at the Taliban who were not part of the Afghan government. I’m okay with that. Are you okay with that? Is Helen Clark okay with that?
I’m ok with that (though I’m disappointed in the lack of follow through on the US’ part),
Clark was ok with that,
English was ok with that,
Obama was ok with that,
Europe was ok with that.
So that means, that is not what BE was talking about. English was talking about some war that Obama and the Europeans argued against on moralistic grounds, (he claims).
She clearly AGREES that you do have to pull the trigger sometimes
As do I. Who’s disputing that? Neither Clark, nor anyone else is disputing that milo. That is a strawman. You killed it though, well done.
You mentioned on Public Address that you don’t normally look at this blog.
What I would like to know is do you support private prisons and private sector involvement in accident compensation, effectively knee-capping the extremely effective ACC?
If you vote National you are giving them a mandate for both those things.
Clark would have gained much more mileage and political high ground by deflecting the issue, perhaps making fun of English when questioned about it and using the opportunity to score a positive political point. “We are proud of our record supporting humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan, our focus is on making the world a safe place….. We should be focusing on the serious economic issues facing NZ ..” etc. etc.
It is easy to turn a negative into a positive, good psychology, and it works. Tony Blair used this technique to win four elections in the UK.
Negative campaigning is a choice, and seasoned campaigners like Clark know it.
I am more interested in her telling a journo the tape was a cracker before she “knew” what was on the tape. The denials about pre-knowledge are getting a bit tired..
If they lose, the post mortem is going to be ugly.
Oh, and is there any truth to the stories circulating that a character called kees kiezer is the secret taper and he is a close friend of the entity known as steve pierson??
Not deliberately trying to pick a fight but all this hiding while flinging poo is likely to be a contributor to the red team losing..
[lprent: bb - Has anyone asked kees kieser? Or is this one of Whales usual bullshit stories made up of a lot of crap and little fact? I noticed that Whale lied about the sources of funding for this site again as well. But then he lies virtually all of the time. In other words - I'd suggest that you consider the source. From my experience of the jerk, I think that Whale would prefer to lie rather than speak truth. ]
To be fair to Key, I would also leave Greerton if I found out Winston was there. Sorry Greerton, it ain’t about you.
As for negative campaigning …
Clark has, in her career, endured having more negative crap aimed at her than ANY OTHER current politician in New Zealand. It goes back to Muldoon’s National. So is she tough? Hell yes. She would not have survived if she wasn’t.
Which is why those without short memories find cries of “no fair” from the right to be extraordinarily lame and somewhat ironic.