Honeymoon. Over.

48 comments on “Honeymoon. Over. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. sdm 1

   7 August 2008 at 11:55 am

   I hope that those responsible for this tape are prepared to take responsibility, even if it means facing prosecution….
2. Paul 2

   7 August 2008 at 11:59 am

   What a slimy disingenuous rich prick.

   Lets just bloody well hope the bubble has burst on this festering bastard.
3. outofbed 3

   7 August 2008 at 12:01 pm

   Campbe was good too, I like the empty chair where Key should have been and the shots of Nick Smith ( strangely taken at the 2007 GREEN party conference, which he invited himself to)
   So Key and National didn’t come over very well on tv3 either
4. Steve Pierson 4

   7 August 2008 at 12:01 pm

   sdm. what would they be prosecuted for?

   captcha: ‘action political’. I love you, captcha.
5. lprent 5

   7 August 2008 at 12:05 pm

   For what offense exactly?

   Have a look at Stephen Prices analysis on
   http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=238
   http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=239

   I will quote his post about the TVNZ coverage though.

   Here’s the quote One News used from me, suggesting that I told them that the recording “may have broken the law’:

   If you’re eavesdropping on somebody else’s conversation that you’re not part of, then you might be breaking the law if it’s clear that those people intend it to be private.

   Well, true. But I went on to point out that there’s no crime if the people talking could reasonably expect to be overheard – which would probably be the case at a cocktail party. But TVNZ didn’t broadcast or mention that bit. Jessica Mutch, who conducted the interview, said she’d read my blog entries too, so she can’t have been in any doubt about my views.

   But I guess that didn’t fit with the story they wanted to tell.
6. yl 6

   7 August 2008 at 12:07 pm

   does anyone have a link to the TV3 one?

   not that stream link either, i can never get it to work
7. leftrightout 7

   7 August 2008 at 12:09 pm

   Finally some decent interviewing! This is fantastic. Thank you to whoever ripped this!
8. all_your_base 8

   7 August 2008 at 12:15 pm

   Yeah yl – I do. Will up it shortly. Would be happy just to link to the files, but like you, I struggle to get them to work without a whole lot of effort.
9. all_your_base 9

   7 August 2008 at 12:18 pm

   Have just chucked up the Campbell Live vid. In it they address the issue of the legality of secret recordings and conclude that what’s happened to the Nats is probably fine.
10. Julie 10

    7 August 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Thanks the Standard team, you have brightened my afternoon considerably 🙂

    I particularly liked Campbell’s cuddly analysis, I think that is bang on.
11. jaymam 11

    7 August 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Here’s my transcript from the Key/Hosking interview:

    HOSKING: He said something completely opposite to what the Party stands for
    KEY: No he didn’t. He – look he just said –
    HOSKING: He said “We want to do it, but not now”
    KEY: No he didn’t say “We want to do it”
    HOSKING: “We want to do it, but not now”
    KEY: No he didn’t say “We want to do it, not now”. He didn’t say that. They were not his words.

    Bill English’s actual words, from 08wire:
    NATIONAL DUDE: What about getting rid of Kiwibank, I mean
    ENGLISH: Well, eventually, but not now. Well, its working. A lot of our supporters get a bit antsy about it, but its working. It’s like a lot of things
12. Steve Pierson 12

    7 August 2008 at 2:26 pm

    What annoys me is that rightwingers like the Herald editoral, in an effort to minimise English’s words have interpreted “well, it’s working. A lot of our supporters get a bit ansty about it, but its working” to mean Kiwibank is working, but you listen to the recording, and it’s clear it is the approach of ‘swallowing dead fish’ that he is saying is working….
13. Tim 13

    7 August 2008 at 2:51 pm

    I watched the Hosking interview and it became really clear to me that Key was just parroting lines fed to him by some media advisor. He couldn’t actually answer a question. He just tried to reply to every question with “we’re about creating assets, not selling them” or some other pre-prepared diversionary response. Hosking isn’t exactly a gun interviewer either but it seems to me Key didn’t handle it well at all. Did anyone hear Mikey Havoc’s interview?

    The Herald tried to say the real issue was that their conversations were taped, rather than the fact that they are grossly misleading the voters.
14. randal 14

    7 August 2008 at 3:20 pm

    there never was a wedding. english has always been a policy wonk from the treasury and moving over for some smart ass from new york was not easy. he knows he can outwait key. in the meantime the nats are not a credible government. they are not going to get a chance to overturn all the arrangements put in place over the last 9 years just so they can have a “turn”. even dyed in the wool nats know that a present national government would be disastrous. thats all there is to it and if the “country” did vote them in then it would indicate a serious social malaise.
15. Lew 15

    7 August 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Tim: Havoc’s Key interview this morning on bFM was much less tightly controlled than either of these.

    But in it, Key said `National’s not going to sell Kiwibank. In my view it’ll never sell Kiwibank.’ (with my emphasis). That’s the sort of categorical reassurance which, if made too strongly, could limit National’s ability to be anything other than the Labour-lite that some on the right are concerned they might be.

    L
16. simon 16

    7 August 2008 at 5:47 pm

    I’m gonna buy a kite tommorrow, anyone know John Key’s address so i can send it to him ?
17. Kinoy001 17

    7 August 2008 at 9:16 pm

    The thing that annoyed me about key on close up is that he CLAIMED that there was no National people protesting at the labour conference. I was there and there was for sure young nats out the front protesting. I saw Jordan who was protesting and is the campaign manager of Stepehen franks (WGN CENTRAL CANDIDATE FOR NATIONAL)

    They were scared of tho lol when the peace activists turned up….

    Cant stand Key… hes full of crap…. and im sick of his lines that he says over and over again as he has no brain to think and speak… needs crosby to do it for him
18. Razorlight 18

    7 August 2008 at 10:02 pm

    This hugely embarrassing story will be making National sweat and their damage control isn’t going to well either. As shown tonight.

    I imagine they will lose some support as a result of this to the minor parties, NZ First, United and Maori. National’s soft supporters who are voting against Labour rather than for National will still want a change of government though. But to ensure the Nats wont go flying to the right they will vote for the centre right minor parties and National will lose their absolute majority.

    They are lucky this has blown up now and not during a campaign. If I was Clark I would go to the Polls now so that this episode is played out during the campaign. In 3 months time it will just be part of history and many will have forgotten.
19. forgetaboutthelastone 19

    7 August 2008 at 10:21 pm

    “They are lucky this has blown up now and not during a campaign.”

    This is gonna stick to the Nats like sh*t from now right up until election time. When they finally release policy – it better be thorough and sufficiently detailed else = secret aganda.

    Whats more – by the looks of it – they haven’t done much work on policy so they better get a bloody move on.
20. Kinoy001 20

    7 August 2008 at 10:38 pm

    I hope this goes with them through out the whole campaign…. It will haunt them for sure.

    Does anyone know when the next poll is due? hope it has made a difference…
21. Steve Pierson 21

    7 August 2008 at 10:57 pm

    The next poll is Roy Morgan late next week. It’s a two week period, this week and last, so only 1/2 will be this week, and it does take time for these things to flow through… I would hope there might be a small movement 1-2%, but I suspect you’ll have to wait for the major polls at the end of the month to see something.. I think this could cost National 4% in those polls.. of course once the polls start moving its momentum and a story in itself… and these comments will haunt every promise the Nats make.
22. Razorlight 22

    7 August 2008 at 11:04 pm

    I agree SP but where will that 4% go. That is what really matters.

    Many have said some National support is soft. It is that support that will move away from them as a result of this. But I, as I think you have as well, have alays thought that support was more anti-Labour than pro-National anyway. So will that 4% run back to Labour.

    If they continue to vote against Labour by giving their support to NZ First, United or the Maori Party will that change the outcome of the election.

    I think this will hurt National but I am not sure that it will benefit Labour by more than 1 or 2%.
23. Robinsod 23

    8 August 2008 at 12:10 am

    Oh dear. I’ve heard polling over the last few days has shown a shift that is so large the pollsters are concerned it is anomalous. I don’t. PR driven support is always shallow. That’s the problem with marketing a politician as a brand – there’s always the chance a new brand will rapidly usurp it.

    Anyone who has worked in marketing understands this and knows their brand position is only as strong as the next competition, new flavour or special offer. When you apply this to politics you end up with wildly variable poll results.

    National has held poll position (excuse the pun) on this because they have been early adapters of political brand marketing. Unfortunately for them it becomes a crapshoot as the win on polling day could be decided by who has made the best coupon offer in the last 24 hours.

    For the record I think this situation is appallingly anti-democratic but seeing as we’re here I heard from a friend that their father in law lives down the rod from JK’s office and he saw a guy in a dark blue three piece suit tipping rubbish on the ground at John’s office and taking photos of it – funny, eh?
24. Razorlight 24

    8 August 2008 at 12:19 am

    “National has held poll position (excuse the pun) on this because they have been early adapters of political brand marketing.”

    I disagree. They have held poll position because people got sick of Labour. Rightly or wrongly because of the economy and because of Smaking/EFA.

    They are so far ahead due to opposition to the government as much as anything they have done. This fuck up will lose them support but, for the above reason, I do not think it will swing back to labour.
25. Robinsod 25

    8 August 2008 at 1:14 am

    I disagree.

    That’s because you are a moron. Must. Try. Harder.
26. Razorlight 26

    8 August 2008 at 1:21 am

    Brilliant intelligent come back. Yes, yes I am a moron. I knew there was a reason I diagreed. I am glad you pointed it out
27. Kevyn 27

    8 August 2008 at 2:50 am

    I had been mystified by National’s inability to crack the Labour stranglehold unitl this blew up, then the penny dropped. Natioanl have been relying on the advice of Crosby & Textor and trying to hide it’s lies behind a wall of silence whereas Labour has been relying on the advice of Penn & Teller.
    1) Never stop talking. Talking distracts the audience from what you are doing.
    2) Hide the big deception behind a small rather obvious deception. This will distract those members of the audience who haven’t been distracted keeping up with you non-stop chatter.
    3) If you’re really brilliant the audience will think the gig deception was pulling the rabbit out of the hat when it was actually picking their pockets so well that they wont notice till after you’ve left the building.
    4) Tell lots of little white lies even if you’re not hiding a big lie. People only resent big lies or bad lies. Little white ones are foregivable because we all tell those ones everyday.
    5) If any member of the audience objects to a little white lie you can:
    a) accuse them of being pedantic
    b) accuse them of being a spoilsport who isn’t getting into the spirit of things
    c) imply they are a conspiracy nut
    d) apologise for not being fully briefed by your advisors, this requires a bit of forward planning to ensure you are never briefed on things that require deniability.
    e) distract the audience while security “escort” the objector to the dungeons.

    You shold never have to resort to that last step if you appoint the right sort of people to the various government boards.

    Yes Robinsod, Elvis is living with Amelia Eirhardt and the crew of Flight 19 in the UFO in my backyard.
28. travellerev 28

    8 August 2008 at 7:27 am

    Kevin,

    Joseph Goebbels the German propaganda minister for Hitler pointed out that big lies told over and over again would eventually be perceived as the truth.

    This is what National has been Propagating time and time again:

    Nationals big lie no 1: John Key is a nice man

    The next two links will prove that he lies and “omits” to get elected.

    Nationals big lie no 2: They care for the Kiwi’s

    Clearly the tapes show that the National leaders have the utmost contempt for the average kiwi, insinuating that they are stupid and greedy for believing that “nice” John Key (Bill English) is going to give them tax cuts and calling them bolting horses (Lockwood Smith)

    Nationals big lie no 3: Tax cuts would benefit all Kiwi’s.

    The American Neo-liberal (Of John Key’s ilk) tax cuts went to the rich because “they would spend the money and this would create new businesses” didn’t work and will never work. All it did was to make already extremely rich people Much richer and the rest much, much poorer.
    So far all they have told us is that they are going to make us poorer by borrowing 5 billion for a “better infrastructure”. That does not bode well for tax cuts and our future. Perhaps you, like many naive and badly informed Kiwis, are not aware but we are heading to a depression of Apocalyptic proportions.

    Nationals big lie no 4: Public/Private funding gives a better return.

    While I’m sure that publicly owned enterprises could be run a little more efficiently, provided everybody works just that little bit harder and longer (that “nice” man John Key thought that dropping wages in order to achieve just that was a good idea) mixing private and public money invariably ends up in disaster. The one half wanting to make a better service while the other wants to make a profit. Profit and public service don’t mix. You only have to look at the worst and most expensive health care of the world in the USA.
    Or it’s privately owned prison system for that matter.(Another great idea from that “nice” man John Key)

    As for calling somebody a Conspiracy theorist that seems to be equally spread over both parties but the last time I heard a politician utter the words was when John Key was confronted with the fact that Nicky Hager had uncovered the fat that he had engaged some latter day Goebbels’s (Who seem to have readily taken Goebbels advise with regards to the big lie); Textor & Cosby, the moment he was elected leader of National
29. travellerev 29

    8 August 2008 at 7:34 am

    In fact Kevin, with your remarks to Sod you prove my point.
30. travellerev 30

    8 August 2008 at 8:35 am

    Hi forgetaboutthelastone,

    How about this one; “Where might is master, justice is servant”:
31. the sprout 31

    8 August 2008 at 3:14 pm

    nice analyses kevyn and traveller.

    of quotes, how about “No man is hero to his valet”.
    i think Bill would acknowledge this to be true.
32. forgetaboutthelastone 32

    8 August 2008 at 3:40 pm

    hi travellerev

    oooo yea – that’s a goody. So “when might is servant, justice is master”?

    lol

    o and sprout – “All valets’ are heroes to their men”?
33. Lampie 33

    8 August 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Well well well National caught with their pants and crying like spoilt school kids. I can see John now at the table negotiating a FTA with the US.

    “We are a nice country please lower tariffs”

    Repeat above lines 5 times

    Hmmmm very good dear leader
34. travellerev 34

    8 August 2008 at 5:34 pm

    forgetaboutthelastone,

    We can dream, can’t we?

    About the valet thing yeah probably, I mean what would they do without them. LOL

    Lampie

    That’s Dutch for little light.

    And I agree on Key. LOL
35. Kevyn 35

    9 August 2008 at 12:46 am

    travellerev, thanks for the Apocalyptic link. I was expecting it refer to peak oil. I thought the ARC’s decision to borrow $600m over 30 years to elictrify the rail system was stupid simply because they are depending on revenue from a tax on petrol to pay off the loan. Now it looks doubly stupid and dangerous.

    Frankly John Key makes me shudder. Especially having watched brand Clinton and brand McCain over recent months. At least one “knew” where Brash would take a National gevernment if he was ever Prime Minister.

    Has Helen Clark used Muldoon as her role model for PM? Apart from the sensible move of keeping PM and Min. of Fin. seperate.

    As far as I can see there has only been one use of the Goebbels tactic by Labour, and that may have been unintended. Since the MSM are based in Auckland and stande to benefit from the splurge of motorway spending it is not surprising that they have willingly repeated the big lie about Auckland’s traffic congestion being the country’s biggest roading crisis. Possibly well beyond the point where it was actually useful to Labour, since they compromised the south eastern motorway sufficiently to lead to Banks’s downfall. Now the lie seems to gained a life all of it’s own. Presumably the Goebbels tactic doesn’t come naturally to Labour otherwise this would never have got away on them.

    I’m afraid your second comment went over my head. (That was intended as a pre-emptive strike, since sod had all guns blazing that night).
36. travellerev 36

    9 August 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Hi Kevin,

    About the comment with regards to the “unauthorised” biography being a pre emptive hit piece the following.

    In the article John is asked about the subprime crisis. He states

    1/ The products that are causing the collapse of the Western financial system were only developed in 2004 and 2005. Moving him far away from the crisis. This of cause not true as I will show in the third instalment of my response to the NZH article but he and his minders are betting on the Kiwi’s ignorance about the international Financial system and what has been happening the last 20 years. He knows that when the consequences hit NZ and people are actually going to ask questions he can always point to this article and say “It weren’t me”.

    2/ He also states that he worked in London, Singapore and Australia.
    I think he hopes that everybody thinks that the crisis emanated from unscrupulous banks on Wall street blaming it on the USA, again suggesting that he was not involved. While it is true that he worked in those countries and cities he lies by omission because he also very much worked in the headquarters of Merrill Lynch in NY. In fact he lost three of his NY colleagues on 911.
    He also states that he lived and worked in NY for of and on 6 years.

    So why doesn’t that show up in the article? That is an important part of his career. it doesn’t show up because they know that that will be damaging in the future.

    They are in other words, before anybody even gets suspicious or begins to ask question, instilling in the NZ population that it wasn’t him out there working with all these financial products that are going to destroy the western economy in the next two years.

    So we can trust good old Slippery John with our economy and money is what the article.

    The title “unauthorised biography” suggests that the three journalists who wrote the piece did so outside of JK’s PR machine.
    Again suggesting that these “free” journalists were out there trying to get the dirt on JK.

    If I can sit on my bed with my laptop and google up so many documents proving that the career timeline as told in the NZH is so evidently wrong than they are either incredibly bad journalists or there is nothing unauthorised about it. And if there is nothing unauthorised about it than this is the information they wanted to get out.

    Therefore, since the average Kiwi thinks that the subprime crisis was something that came and went in 2007, it must be of some concern to JK and his minders and they want to pre-emptively protect JK from future impact. Otherwise why bring it up.
37. Kevyn 37

    9 August 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Travellerev, After reading those posts on your blog I now understand what you meant.

    The amount of effort you had to make to document the “errors” in the unauthorised biography is another reason why the many little white lies tactic is superior to the big lie tactic. Documenting hundreds of small lies spread over many years is much more time consuming than busting one big lie especially if it revolves around one particular event.

    Even when there are no lies involved, a postentially unpopular policy is can avoid MSM criticism if it is implemented carefully. National’s deliberately drew attention to it’s plan to borrow $1.5bn for land transport infrastructure and attracted considerable critcism about saddling future generations with debt. Labour’s plan to borrow $1.5bn for land transport infrastructure has not attracted the same critcism because it’s implementation has been spread over several years ensures that the loans are taken out by regional councils rather than central government. This allows the government to fund tax cuts from borrowing guaranteed by ratepayers. Have a look at the item in Wednesday’s Herald about the funding of the rail electrification project. The crucial pieces of info omitted from the article are that the annual revenue from 10 cent regional petrol tax will be approx $80m, the legislation authorizing the tax says Auckland has to give half the revenue from the tax to the government.
    Work out what it is going to cost Auckland ratepayers once peak oil has it’s full impact and what the numbers are likely to be if all the other regional councils copy the ARc to fund rail or bus electrification.
38. travellerev 38

    10 August 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Kevin,

    Why are you using the information I gave on my blog about JK’s lies about the timeline of his career based on solid research to smear labour? You’re not addressing the issues I raise about John Key’s presentation of the timeline. His timeline is patently impossible.

    Telling us that you read my post and presenting it here as an extension of my response to you on this blog as being about the “big lie” is a true misinformation piece of work.

    You are very smart and doing so raises questions about who you are and why you are posting here.

    For those of you who want to know about what I really said in my post, read it here

    And Kevin, try to read what you write out loud it helps to prevent silly errors.
39. Kevyn 39

    11 August 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Travellerev, That’s a difficult comment to respond to since I don’t understand any of it. Since confusion is a bad way to end any discussion, um, I’ll quickly go through it step by step and see if I can spot where things went wrong.

    These are the bits in our discussion that my brain focussed on:
    I made my Penn & Teller comment.
    You responded with your Nationals big lies comment.
    Then you commented “In fact Kevin, with your remarks to Sod you prove my point.”
    I then responded to your big lie comment and mentioned Labour and Auckland’s congestion and ended with “I’m afraid your second comment went over my head. (That was intended as a pre-emptive strike, since sod had all guns blazing that night).”
    Your response began “About the comment with regards to the “unauthorised’ biography being a pre emptive hit piece the following.”
    What followed made a lot of sense, and had me sufficiently interested to visit your blog to get more details.
    So I responded “After reading those posts on your blog I now understand what you meant.”
    Perhaps I should have added “about the “unauthorised’ biography being a pre emptive hit piece.”
    Perhaps I shouldn’t have put “errors” in “” without saying that errors don’t happen deliberately, since that is what I was thinking.
    I then commented on the process you used to find the truth and how that process would be made more time consuming when more lies are involved, and gave an example. I could just as easily have used the Bush administrations suppression of climate change debate but I wanted to use an example where I could actually link to the evidence if anybody challenged me.
    At this point I can respond to your criticism about the issues you raised about JK. This discussion began with comments about how we are lied to by the political machine and that is what I thought we were still debating, with the unauthorised biography as an example. My only response is that I was responded exactly the way JK’s minders wanyed. He wasn’t there so he didn’t commit treason. You’ve discredited that idea and destroyed that peace of mind, or what was left of it after reading Key’s conference speech.
    Smear Labour? With facts? Can’t be done. To smear Labout I would have to resort to adding a whole lot of innuendo to a kernel of fact, throwing in a good dose of moral outrage or indignation along the way. The response to Ruth Dyson’s comment is a perfect example of the smear tactic. Or the Brash adultery allegations of a few years ago.
    Your second paragraph is the complete mystery to me. I never told you any such thing. I never presented any such idea. Well, I never never had any of those ideas in my head when I wrote my comment, and it still doesn’t read that way to me. My original idea in my very first comment was to illustrate another one of the ways in which all politicians deceive, to a greater or lesser extent. I simply provided an illustration, in which I emphasised there actually was no little white lie but simply a long drawn out process, of why the little white lie process works so well with the MSM. It’s the way that actions are spread out over time that makes it so difficult to refute. Hence the contrast with your discrediting of the “Nationals big lie no 1: John Key is a nice man”. If I could have found an example of National using that technique that I could document I would have used that instead. I didn’t start closely following land transport funding till Shipley was PM. I suspect if I had started a decade earlier Williamson would have presented plenty of good examples for me to use. But that was a very hands-off decade for the day to day funding of land transport, everything seems to have been “wait for the RAG report”.

    I’ll stop now and wait for your response.
40. travellerev 40

    14 August 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Hi Kevin,

    yes, I think it would have made a difference if you had acknowledged the pre emptive hit piece bit because than your remarks about the long drawn out lie can be read in entirely different light and well within the scope of our previous discussion.

    Thank you for your reply and willingness to trace the discussion and sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

    I have to confess to there being a myriad of holes in my knowledge of the NZ political history and some the finesses and sensibilities that are common knowledge among Kiwi’s escape me completely because I only just arrived here three years ago.

    I have a basic knowledge about some of the major historical events such as the Ruthanasia episode and the more evident differences between Labour and National whom I would compare mostly with the Dutch liberals in their more Neo liberal version.

    It was the inconsistencies and secretive behaviour of John Key and his connection with the international banking elite which triggered my investigative instincts most so that’s why he is on my hit list as it were.

    About Ruth Richardson there is an interesting connection right there.
    Ruth Richardson bless her little cotton socks now has a place on the board of directors of a political think tank called the centre for Independent studies in Sidney. It is a think tank which is closely aligned with the Council for foreign relations and what makes it even more interesting is the fact that one of the other board members a man called Robert Champion de Crespigny AC who is a powerhouse in the mining industry also sits on the board of the Crosby and Textor Pr Company

    I reckon it’s the CIS that is giving John Key his secret policies and that they are his puppet masters.

    Also on the board of the CIS sits a Board member of the Rio Tinto mining company and an assorted big boys all of whom are very interested in getting their hands on the mining rights in New Zealand.

    By the way I am working on part 2 and part 3 of my response to the NZH puff piece and it is just as easy to tie John Key to the Asian crisis and the subprime crisis. He really is a piece of work.
41. Paul Robeson 41

    14 August 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Where has Mike Hosking been all my election campaign? Maybe Key saw a white guy in a suit and assumed that it was Paul Henry.

    Good work Hosking. Keep it up, make him work and a lot harder than that.
42. Paul Robeson 42

    14 August 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Bill English’s actual words, from 08wire:
    NATIONAL DUDE: What about getting rid of Kiwibank, I mean
    ENGLISH: Well, eventually, but not now. Well, its working. A lot of our supporters get a bit antsy about it, but its working. It’s like a lot of things

    If Labour want to be funny they should take this quote and run with it as their election slogan.

    Would show a lot class..

    A change of government?
    Kiwibank, working for families, Gps, Kiwisaver, etc etc
    Well, eventually, but not now. Well, its working. Its like a lot of things…
43. Paul Robeson 43

    14 August 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Followed up with a ‘well, we want to keep going. You know, we’re still ambitious for New Zealand.”
44. dad4justice 44

    14 August 2008 at 8:06 pm

    New Zealand is a fucked unit and John Wee and the blue bottle wimps won’t fix it !!!

    Go Helen, make ALL world leaders laugh at you!!!!!
45. Roby110 45

    14 August 2008 at 8:10 pm

    he’s acually pissed isn’t he? Isn’t he? I mean that’s got to be the reason doesn’t it? He can’t really be like that …….can he?
46. Pascal's bookie 46

    14 August 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Roby, there’s also the performance art project theory.

    I wonder if it’s someone developing Artificial Intelligence and using blog comment sections as a Turing test.

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: National and the media: posted on 14 August 2008 at 10:30 am
2. Beehive Buzz - Political News and Comment » Blog Archive » Media Appearances…: posted on 14 August 2008 at 1:55 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS