So the fuss about Russel Norman comparing John Key to Robert Muldoon is still rumbling on – almost a week later. National Party spinster David Farrar helpfully rounded up all the outraged editorials. Typically hypocritical of Farrar given the various times he compared Clark to Muldoon, as Andrew Geddis patiently lists here.
I’m with those who think that the comparison is warranted. Not in terms of up-front personality – Key is much more slick and cunning. But Key is a big fan of Muldoon (see below), and his list of personal attacks and constitutional shenanigans has already grown more than long enough to challenge the old master. Read the post by Geddis for why those who are acting all outraged have a bad case of “doth protest too much”.
Anyway, not wanting to steal Russel’s thunder or anything, but I feel I should point out that when it comes to comparing Key and Muldoon, The Standard was way ahead of you. Like, six years ahead of you – the post reproduced below the line is from Tane in 2007. Interesting to note how much Key admires Muldoon…
John, I am your father
Naturally, National Party blogger David Farrar has been wallowing like a pig in shit over Mike Moore’s comments in the Herald comparing the two, and he seems to think the Stuff image proves his point.
Personally, I think this one’s a much better fit:
After all, if we’re going to compare anyone to Muldoon then we may as well start with someone who’s actually expressed his admiration for the guy:
CAMPBELL: What did you think of Muldoon?
KEY: Well I liked him, um…
KEY: Oh well he was a pretty strong leader and at the time it seemed good ah I think you could look back economically now and say um things necessarily weren’t that flash, ah, but at the time I liked his leadership and he, yeah, he seemed like a strong individual.
And is it just me, or is it kinda creepy how even the wrinkles on their foreheads match up?