Crosby Textor spin the use of Crosby Textor

33 comments on “Crosby Textor spin the use of Crosby Textor ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Steve Pierson 1

   1 July 2008 at 2:11 pm

   Love that slip “I do condone push polling”

   might be time for a “Key parroting C/T vs Key in his own words” later in the week
2. Matthew Pilott 2

   1 July 2008 at 2:16 pm

   As I mentioned in another thread, if he valued advice from the public, he wouldn’t be doing his utmost to prevent them from advising him!
3. andy 3

   1 July 2008 at 2:24 pm

   Audrey Young has finally woken up, this may be a story after all.

   John Key is starting to remind me of the Mad Butcher, whom I interviewed in Auckland years ago at a disabilities conference about a particular affliction he had.

   It’s the one where you say Yes when you mean No, and Yesterday when you mean Tomorrow, and Right when you mean Wrong.
4. Tane 4

   1 July 2008 at 2:40 pm

   Andy, that’s a good piece by Audrey.

   One thing he could confirm: “I’m going to set the tone of National’s campaign and that tone will be optimistic, positive and ambitious because it reflects my personality and it reflects the way the country should be run.”

   Such a perfectly formed phrase – perhaps from Crosby Textor – that he repeated it three times.

   Looks like the media are clicking to Key’s lines.
5. andy 5

   1 July 2008 at 2:47 pm

   Tane

   My favorite line:

   The failure to confirm what everybody knows and what the party is willing to confirm with a nod and wink is quite ludicrous. It is lending a sinister tone to something which should be freely admitted. If Crosby Textor were worth the money they are being paid, they would have advised Key of that ages ago.

   bugger!
6. insider 6

   1 July 2008 at 3:34 pm

   I note Damien O’Connor has been listening at the foreign owned dark arts practitioners UMR’s strategy sessions and absorbed their perfect formed poll driven phrases –

   ‘slippery’ was in every second sentence, ‘front up’ was a regular, and ‘unpatriotic’ reared its ugly head (echoing the Standard’s bad mouthing NZ line – got any connection with UMR guys?).

   Interesting the govt has been going on about lack of Nat policy yet their main attack line appears to be not on policy but on personality
7. Billy 7

   1 July 2008 at 3:35 pm

   Sorry to post this here, but has anyone seen ‘sod? He never calls, he never writes. I’m worried about him.
8. Felix 8

   1 July 2008 at 3:43 pm

   Don’t worry Billy, I’m sure he’d never post around.
9. mike 9

   1 July 2008 at 3:56 pm

   “but she (HC) avoided saying the party would reveal all its consultants.”

   Well that’s pretty interesting. Fess up or shut up Helen.
10. rjs131 10

    1 July 2008 at 3:57 pm

    All this is great news for Darien Fenton. I have no doubt that it will acuse a massive swing against John Key as the good people of Helensville realise this is the greatest scandal in the history of the world.. Bring on the Fenton landslide win I say!
11. insider 11

    1 July 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Labour’s dirty campaign is shown to be even more likely to be a dirty one by this

    “She [HC] would not rule out push-polling either from Labour – something that Key categorically ruled out from National in the coming election campaign – but only “honest” push-polling.”

    I thought push polling was a crime judging by recent commentary at the Standard and by the PM. Obviously it is only wrong when done by the ‘wrong’ people.
12. Steve Pierson 12

    1 July 2008 at 4:06 pm

    mike. Young’s reading of what Clark said is weird. Clark said she is happy to make all it’s outside contractors public – pollsters and focus group people – Labour doesn’t have secret contractors doing its spin, that’s National.

    Billy. Wasn’t there a gang bust in Timaru the other night? And now the ‘sod’s missing? Coincidence?
13. Tane 13

    1 July 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Steve, FFS, the possessive apostrophes on “its”.
14. Billy 14

    1 July 2008 at 4:11 pm

    OMG, Tane, you’re pointing out grammatical errors in a superior and hectoring way. That used to be our thing…[emotional sniffle].
15. lprent 15

    1 July 2008 at 4:12 pm

    insider: that requires explanations – it should be obvious, but I guess you need handholding.

    1. What is the third party that will arbitrate what is push-polling? After watching the hypocrites of the right redefine whatever they want I wouldn’t trust them not to redefine a sheep as a cow. For instance what a “labour funded blog” is.

    2. I was thinking after looking at Key saying they wouldn’t be ‘push-polling’, and recollecting that the Nat’s asserted they hadn’t done any in 2005. It was done ‘independently’ by the exclusive brethren after a few chats with national party leading lights. Yeah right.

    3. Bearing in mind that Helen is honest and Key probably isn’t at anything except maybe a technical level (see point 2 and consider Bill Clinton). She isn’t excluding it because of point 1 and 2. If the Nat’s or their proxies do it again, then Labour will as well. Labour isn’t likely to do quite the level of dirt in push-polling that the Nat’s or their proxies are likely to do. But they do have to counter if it is used against them

    This is a long way of saying that you’re acting like a political idiot. Please read some material on MAD strategies.
16. Steve Pierson 16

    1 July 2008 at 4:12 pm

    insider. no connection to UMR. I came up with ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign phrase on The Standard. It’s not the best phrase in the world but it sums up the Nats’ strategy nicely. I would suggest that either Labour people have read the blog (we know they do, Darien Fenton and a couple of other MPs have commented) and picked up the idea but not the wording (which is fair enough, it’s not msm compatible) or O’Connor came up with it himself – it’s pretty obvious that National is running NZ down at every opportunity to make people feel the country is going down the tubes under Labour, even though the facts don’t back that up. I claim no special powers in elucidating such things and others are perfectly capable of doing the same.

    and, insider, I suspect what Clark said is that she rules out any “dishonest push polling”, and Young has taken a weird reading of that too. She is simply saying push polling is dishonest (it is by its nature) and that Labour won’t do it, not that Labour would do some kind of mythical ‘honest’ push polling.
17. Lampie 17

    1 July 2008 at 4:15 pm

    This is what LaBOUR SOULD SAY WHEN COMMENTING ABOUT any of the Nat’s comments

    “sounds a bit like Crosby Texter to me”

    make it a catch phrase

    Need to get some association going with the Nat’s comments
18. lprent 18

    1 July 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I was thinking something like “The pricks from Dirty Tricks” but that is too long
19. Steve Pierson 19

    1 July 2008 at 4:18 pm

    tane. When you do a post, I’ll correct my practices, vis-à-vis possessive pronoun punctuation.

    [Tane: I’d write more myself, but it’s a full time job cleaning up after you bro]
20. mike 20

    1 July 2008 at 4:19 pm

    “She is simply saying push polling is dishonest (it is by its nature) and that Labour won’t do it, not that Labour would do some kind of mythical ‘honest’ push polling.”

    Steve – are you Crosby Textor?
21. Dancer 21

    1 July 2008 at 4:20 pm

    It occurs to me like a few of the political journalists may be wondering how much of their conversations with Mr Key have been all his own work, and how much has originated elsewhere.

    This is dangeroug territory for National. It seems acknowledged widely that Mr Key does not have a great handle on policy detail – so his need to stick to script is greater (as we know what happens when he tries to explain the detail. Remember how lacking in credibility he was on the $50 fine for offenders?). Clark on the other hand, may be given lines, but she doesn’t tend to do that “Repeat this sentence despite the question” trick other poli’s try. And we know as she has an opinion (and the knowledge to back it up) on a vast array of topics – and is usually only too happy to try and explain it in great detail. Seems like the two big parties have the opposite problem!
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    1 July 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Yeah mike, steve is two people.
23. mike 23

    1 July 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Phew, I didn’t think one man could hold down a job, make fictional graphs and be a fulltime labour hack

    [lprent: Exactly why did you call him a ‘labour’ hack? From memory, Clinton has said that he was more likely to support the greens than anyone else.
    Those graphs cannot be as fictional as the ones Bryan has been doing. Those don’t even have the sources, whereas you can always argue Clinton’s ones because he puts in accurate sources.
    Now let me put this another way – you got really really close to me kicking you off for a while.]
24. Inventory2 24

    1 July 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Hey, what about Labour forgetting about the superannuation for the Toll workers eh. I thought you guys would have been all over that story, given that this is supposed to be a worker-friendly government.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/07/labours-latest-rail-cock-up.html
25. Tane 25

    1 July 2008 at 4:43 pm

    IV2, sounds like an honest cock-up. I’ll put it down below the three other stories on workers’ rights I’d like to write but don’t have time to.
26. andy 26

    1 July 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Pass the hankie for the pearl clutching bedwetters of the right!

    Oh how horrible these email thefts are, these lefties are a terrible bunch, we of the right would never stoop to such levels. We in the real world, use common sense and want the best for the country. Clark only wants power to forward her own personal agenda. Those lefties are ideological nasties.

    The wailing and gnashing of teeth over CT looks like buyers remorse to me.

    captcha: tities wilbour
27. insider 27

    1 July 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Steve

    While the UMR comment was made in jest I appreciate the response. I am happy to take you guys at your word about your non affiliations.

    I read HC’s comment as meaning they won’t use blatantly ‘false’ claims to test themes (ie would you vote for Key if you knew he supported eating babies?) but ones they think are ‘believeable’. One was used in Parliament today – “how much is National going to slash health budgets?’ The kind of thing you guys do all the time around workers rights and wages. No evidence but fits a perception.

    Lynne
    Not sure what you are on about. I’ll agree HC is as honest as most other politicians. The rest seemed to be inventing scenarios around things I hadn’t said. You’re not push polling are you?
28. lprent 28

    1 July 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Nope.

    BTW: I liked the way that you carefully didn’t say that HC was honest. Have you been reading that paper over at the media law journal on how to dodge awkward questions?
29. forgetaboutthelastone 29

    1 July 2008 at 6:46 pm

    so some CT inspired national party dirty tricks so far would be:

    – just the other day Key grossly over-stated SPARC funding. The media laps it up, the next day it comes out that his figures are wrong. But according to CT ‘explaining is losing’ and accordingly the MSM don’t bother reporting the error – the perception stands.

    – last year some time, Key selectively quoted HC as saying she didn’t think tax cuts were a good idea when in fact she said tax cuts were not a good idea in the current economic climate (2005 or whenever it was). At the time the Labour Party stated ‘explaining is losing’ and again no correction appeared in the media.

    It really is a sickening thing this ‘explaining is losing’ – its like saying ‘lies will always triumph over the truth as long as you get in first’.

    I’d like to see a bit of the opposite ‘explaining is winning’ in the MSM at the moment.
30. higherstandard 30

    1 July 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Lynne

    The Prime Minister is just as adept at misdirection, misleading and lying as any other politician in the house as she should and has to be to get to where she is – sadly this is the nature of politics.

    A good example from that link you found for me…Undoubtedly Prime Minister Helen Clark is New Zealand’s leading exponent of the Dodge. Her answers, even when not quite on point, merge seamlessly with the questions. Take her description of the time she ticked off Tariana Turia for comparing the plight of Maori after colonisation to the holocaust…

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=103

    Some of the examples from Shipley and Maharey are also superb – Key could learn a bit from how these people respond to questions without really responding.
31. mike 31

    1 July 2008 at 8:07 pm

    “lprent: Exactly why did you call him a ‘labour’ hack? From memory, Clinton has said that he was more likely to support the greens than anyone else.”

    Fair call, I should have said left wing hack.
32. ak 32

    1 July 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Sheeshus burtHS: I’ve got a few more ancient barrels round here that need their bottoms scraped when you’ve finished there….
33. Paul Robeson 33

    2 July 2008 at 4:07 pm

    “I do condone push polling/torture/the war in Iran/Iraq”

    NZ media (both of them not outsourced to Australia): really?

    ” wait, *checks script* no, no I do not condone push polling”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS