Written By: - Date published: 10:09 am, September 17th, 2008 - 87 comments
Categories: Media -
Tags:
I sometimes have Fox News on in the background when I’m home, it’s good to get wound up now and again. So, I’m used to seeing the most bizarre attack angles masquerading as serious journalism. But I took a second-take when I saw this one because it took a moment to realise I wasn’t looking at a Fox headline, I was looking at the Herald:
“Is Helen Clark’s new campaign photo too glamorous?”
I feel like a slightly revamped Little Red Riding-hood: my Granny has been replaced by a Fox.
[on a more serious note, it's incredible how misogyny pervades politics still. You don't see articles on whether pictures of Key are too air-brushed]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
weka. the headline was different on the frontpage and on the actual article, that link Draco TB gave goes to the article
If make-up and a nice hairdo can make Helen look this good on billboard, why doesn’t she take the time to do that every day?
Yeah Phil, and all women in NZ should look like they stepped out the pages of Vogue. *rolls eyes*
You do realise that most people don’t actually look like that?
SP,
What’s the problem? It’s on topic and seems like a reasonable opinion, albeit one that others would disagree with. Regretting posting this thread?
Thanks for the kind wishes, though.
ok, the Herald was actually talking about someone who took a complaint to the advertising standards authority that got rejected at the first hurdle. And the Herald linked that off the front page with the headline about Clark’s billboard being too glamorous. Because a baseless complaint is news too!
Scribe. the post is about how pathetic it is that The Herald would be obsessed with a politician’s photo, how this wouldn’t happen if Clark were male, and how they are looking more like Fox in their bizarre attacks.. her teeth aren’t even ‘replaced’
F*ck, and Steve complains that his humour is missed by people commenting here…
how they are looking more like Fox in their bizarre attacks.
Some of the posts on The Standard are looking more like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.
her teeth aren’t even ‘replaced’
So those are Helen Clark’s own teeth on the billboard photos? Wow, they look different to me.
This is too funny… all Helen’s suitors chipping in to protect her ‘honour’… kinda cute.
Except of course she lost the last shred of honour she had left when she stole our money to steal an election and introduced retrospective law to make the crime legal. Now that’s what I call airbrushing!!!
… and c’mon, Steve, are you so love sick you’ve gone blind?!! She’s been artificially enhanced from smash-mouth to pearlers!! You can add this to her growing list controversies: Paintergate, Corngate, Motorcadegate, Electiongate, Winstongate and now Colgate!!
she stole our money to steal an election and introduced retrospective law to make the crime legal.
G gets his knowledge of electoral process from the back of the same cereal packets as his understanding of climate change I see.
Just a quick history lesson G. After the last election one party lost its leader due to the piublic outcry at its despicable tactics during the campaign. That party was National.
G,
That is the first use of -gate which hasn’t made me cringe this year
Are you a denier, Rob?! Are you saying she didn’t steal the money, didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%, and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal and avoid a court case that would have convicted her?
I understand the process perfectly well. You’re the one who needs to be taught a lesson.
gee you are a kreep. I know that and you know that but you dont want to do anything about it. just fuck off.
G,
Yes, you’re wrong.
There are two different issues:
1) Whether Parliamentary Services misspent
2) Whether political breached their spending caps by using the PS misspend.
The first one was the subject of the retrospective validation. No-one could have been charged with theft whether or not the spending was validated.
The second one could have been the subject of court action (although not for theft) but wasn’t because (from memory) the Police didn’t choose to prosecute within the statutory time limit. A number of parties could have been prosecuted for this.
Out of interest, where are you figuring National’s broadcasting overspend in? Similarly could have been prosecuted but wasn’t.
Isn’t it cute to see G so excited? He thinks he’s on to a winner here!
Are you saying she didn’t steal the money
Correct.
didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%
There was no stolen money.
and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal
There was no theft.
I’m sure you’re going to now bang on and on about this forever. Sigh. Perhaps you could begin by saying who this money was “stolen” from, what law was broken, and by whom?
With fixed tags:
Isn’t it cute to see G so excited? He thinks he’s on to a winner here!
Are you saying she didn’t steal the money
Correct.
didn’t use the stolen money for a last minute campaign that nabbed the crucial 1%
There was no stolen money.
and didn’t rewrite the law to make the theft legal
There was no theft.
I’m sure you’re going to now bang on and on about this forever. Sigh. Perhaps you could begin by saying who this money was “stolen’ from, what law was broken, and by whom?
Actually, I regret that comment. I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle.
r0b and burt – can you remember where the epic thread on this is? Maybe we could point to that each time and not have to start from scratch.
anita, egburt and co rely on the fact that fools can ask more questions than a wise man can answer and that you are too nice to give him a friggin slapping which he so justly deserves…I actually think he is colon from twiedme with another id but we will let that one go for the moment. what ever in the long run he’s just another kreep.
randal,
Yeah, I just need reminding of that from time to time. Thanks
Inconvenient truths:
1) The funds were ‘misappropriated’ for electioneering purposes: the money was not theirs; it belonged to the taxpayer.
2) Labour promised to pay back the $800,000+ then promptly reneged the moment it regained power.
3) There was yet another prima facie case which the police failed to act upon. (Tui: Helen didn’t strong-arm the cops.)
4) The Libertarianz leader would have successfully prosecuted her if the court case had been allowed to proceed. It was invalidated by emergency retrospective law – in other words, the illegal made legal.
Corrupt as corrupt gets.
BTW, Anita, National were also guilty (and should’ve been proportionately prosecuted), though theirs appears to have been a genuine oversight of a mere $11,000 as opposed to the massive $824,524 that Labour pinched.
Anderton and Darnton were the only ones in the clear.
Why is John Key hovering over the shoulder of all his MP’s in each and every one of their campaign billboards?
Is he worried he might get overshadowed by someone that looks less insipid?
I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle.
Me too. But I don’t like people spreading lies either.
1) The funds were ‘misappropriated’
I thought you said they were stolen G? So that’s the first back down from your lies.
2) Labour promised to pay back the $800,000+ then promptly reneged the moment it regained power.
That’s another lie.
3) There was yet another prima facie case which the police failed to act upon.
Was that the National GST overspend prima facie case you were thinking of?
4) The Libertarianz leader would have successfully prosecuted her if the court case had been allowed to proceed. It was invalidated by emergency retrospective law
He would not have successfully prosecuted “her” because she was not guilty of anything, and the case was thrown out by a separate deliberate vote in parliament – only National voted in favour of the court case proceeding.
Corrupt as corrupt gets.
That would be National, who lost their leader as a result of their tactics in the 2005 election.
I should have attributed comments better in by previous. “I am tired of relitigating the 2005 PS spending debacle’ was Anita, everything else was G.
G,
Here is an awesome thread in which all possible variations of the 2005 PS election funding issue is canvassed: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2289
All your questions will be answered, all your facts checked, all your illusions shattered, all your nightmares arrived at once.
misappropriate |ËŒmisəˈprÅprÄ“ËŒÄt|
verb [ trans. ]
(of a person) dishonestly or unfairly take (something, esp. money, belonging to another) for one’s own use : department officials had misappropriated funds.
i.e. stolen. These funds were NOT allowed to be used for electioneering. End of story.
Anita, I didn’t think G would have the attention span to digest that thread, but now I guess we’ll see!
“He would not have successfully prosecuted “her’ because she was not guilty of anything, and the case was thrown out by a separate deliberate vote in parliament – only National voted in favour of the court case proceeding.”
That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them: “Hands up youse who think we should be prosecuted… Passed! No case to answer for, eh!”
Hilarious.
i.e. stolen.
Still lying G. Read the thread that Anita linked to above, then get back to us.
jasper…he has been taking lessons from the squibber rodney hide!
<i. That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them
Parliament is the highest legal authority in the country G, and you’re comparing them to the Mongrel Mob? That’s a good start.
Only National voted for the court case to proceed. No other party saw any worth in it.
G: That’s like asking the Mongrel Mob to rule on legitimate charges against them
Parliament is the highest legal authority in the country G, and you’re comparing them to the Mongrel Mob? That’s a good start.
Only National voted for the court case to proceed. No other party saw any worth in it.
Right, Rob ~ the highest legal authority in NZ is asked to rule on whether they should be prosecuted for using taxpayers’ money for electioneering purposes. “Ahhh… hands up those who think we did anything wrong?”
Banana republic stuff.
I note that none of youse have denied that the funds were misappropriated for the purposes of electioneering — a direct contravention of the electoral rules.
Go read the thread linked to by Anita G, all covered there. Bye for now…