Written By: - Date published: 2:40 pm, September 30th, 2008 - 43 comments
Categories: election 2008, maori party, Media, national, racism -
Tags:
On Breakfast this morning, failed National party candidate Paul Henry and Guyon Espiner discussed the possibility of the Maori Party and National working together in a government.
Henry: Do you get the feeling National would do anything for power, they would cut almost any deal at all with the Maori Party to get in?
Espiner: Yes, pretty much
Both seemed sure that National would give up their policy of abolishing the Maori seats in a second. Indeed, they thought National had only put up the policy as a bargaining chip to be given away after the election. Guyon said he detected no personal commitment to abolishing the seats from Key or other senior Nats, despite Key and his fellows being the same people who backed Brash’s racist Orewa speech. Neither seemed to see any problem with this dishonesty and lack of principle.
When did it become OK for a party to espouse policies that they intend to never follow through on?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Again from Johansson, this bit on the dogwhistle is very good:
Preaching to the choir Tane (but thanks for taking the time to explain it to me), my issue was with the attempt to blame Brash for the seabed and foreshore confiscation. Tenuous.
SP, if we are not trying to influence the polls why are we blogging at all?
TIM ELLIS…what are you? you come on here and abuse your host and expect to be treated civilly. I think you might be a national toad!
howzat!
Tim don’t be such a pussy.
If you’re going to make insinuations and thinly veiled accusations at least have the guts to stand by them.
Here, read it again:
“SP I know you’ve said you’re a Green Party supporter, despite barely ever writing about Green issues and despite almost only ever running Labour Party attack lines.”
p.s. this is where you say “oh no, there’s actually nothing in those words that definitely makes an accusation” as if everyone else is a moron and you’re not.
Unless they want a civil war – they can’t.
Bring on the WAR!
Felix, Tim thinks sophistry beats semantics.
He likes to act the big hearted martyr, and complain that he is so unfairly accused of various sins, while butter wouldn’t melt in his what have you.
Over at Hooten’s place I mentioned that head office pressured that paper up north into running the ‘clarification’ on Key’s wages quote.
Tim said that he suspected I didn’t have any evidence, and that he thought I was making things up after the fact.
A sophist of course will claim that he never called me a liar who was making shit up, but the semantics of his wording says that he thought I was. He decided to express those thoughts and suspicions rather than asking if I had any evidence. His meaning was clear and unavoidable, but I gave him the evidence anyway, and objected to being called a liar, he hasn’t responded to any comment I’ve flicked his way since. However pointed. I’m expecting he’ll claim he didn’t see my reply.
I’ve no idea who he thinks he’s fooling with his silly games, but there you go. Personally I’d have a lot more respect for him if he just spoke his mind honestly, he’s not stupid and has some interesting things to say but ruins it with the stupid rhetorical antics.
Interesting article by Johansson. Although in terms of his question – is ‘teaching reality’ achievable in contemporary democratic society – it’s not if people immediately reach for the race card to stifle debate.