Key the opposite of Obama

23 comments on “Key the opposite of Obama ”

• Comments are now closed

1. milo 1

   7 November 2008 at 1:08 pm

   Jeez Steve, these posts are starting to wander. You’re having difficulty hanging on to your theme. How I see it:

   Abortion – can’t understand what you are saying.

   Climate change – John Key’s policy seems to be the same as Obamas – make the US the leader 🙂

   Fuel economy standards – what did this have to do with John Key? Somebody you don’t like said something you disagree with, and all of a sudden it’s the Keyster’s fault? Huh?

   Domestic violence – now you are talking about Labour, not John Key.

   Woman’s Issues – where was Labour’s page on Woman’s issues?

   Expading early childhood education – National had clear policy on this in 2005 and has said it supports the current initiatives, so you are wrong again.

   Ending the war in Iraq – wrong again. National wanted us to maintain the relationship with traditional allies. So they’ll be supporting Obama then !

   Keep trying, still half a day to go.
2. Scribe 2

   7 November 2008 at 1:11 pm

   John Key DID NOT lie in the debate. He doesn’t want a change to the abortion laws. He told pro-lifers and pro-family groups that on two separate occasions, despite knowing it was an unpopular response.

   Last year in Parliament two failed amendments were attempted trying to replace the government’s status quo nominees with anti-abortion ones.

   Wrong. They were not status quo nominees. The committee had no members for a long time and these were three new nominees.

   One attempted replacement was a doctor who has worked for an anti-abortion counselling service.

   True. And I might add that one of the three nominees that the Government put forward works in the abortion industry, so was assigned to a committee that sets her own pay. Conflict of interest, anyone?
3. Matthew Pilott 3

   7 November 2008 at 1:14 pm

   There were two comment by Guv, here’s the other one:

   “Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.
   Look at national’s labour policy it is designed to smash the unions as they tried to do and largely succeded in doing in the nineties. On unions they’re polar opposites.

   Fight Attacks on Workers’ Right to Organize
   And National; only today John Key called a worker’s rights activist an idiot.

   Raise the Minimum Wage
   And national no commitment on raising minimum wage. Labour has raised minimum wage many times since its been in power.

   Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
   i.e., Working for Families. John Key said it was communism by stealth and just so you know it’s a tax credit exactly like working for families.

   Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama and Biden will update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs. Sound familiar. Sounds just like labour policy to me.

   Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank That’s progressive party policy.

   Make the Research and Development Tax Credit Permanent
   Whereas national wants to get rid of our R&D tax credit.

   Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave
   That’s progress, but National they want to get rid of the four week’s annual leave we have.

   Weatherize One Million Homes Annually
   Like insulation and such. Green party policy which Labour has adopted and National will cancel.”

   It all adds up: The US voted to move towards where Labour has been taking us. A vote for National/ACT is a vote to take us back towards the position the US rejected two days ago.
4. gingercrush 4

   7 November 2008 at 1:14 pm

   I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say. You are picking at straws and failing miserably.
5. milo 5

   7 November 2008 at 1:17 pm

   Matthew: Steve’s already cherry picked the more plausible ones, and they didn’t stand up very well. Besides, haven’t you noticed, Helen Clark isn’t black?

   America voted for change. Do a content analysis of the news there, that’s what they say. Change you can believe in !
6. Higherstandard 6

   7 November 2008 at 1:18 pm

   Matty

   “It all adds up: The US voted to move towards where Labour has been taking us. A vote for National/ACT is a vote to take us back towards the position the US rejected two days ago.”

   Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha.

   The Democrats and Republicans in the USA are way to the right of the NZ National party.
7. Matthew Pilott 7

   7 November 2008 at 1:19 pm

   “I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say.”

   Translation: ‘La lalalalala I can’t hear you’. GC – that’s not a good look. Perhaps keep quiet if you don’t understand, or ask nicely for an explanation, instead of blaming your lack of understanding on someone else.
8. Matthew Pilott 8

   7 November 2008 at 1:24 pm

   “The Democrats and Republicans in the USA are way to the right of the NZ National party.”

   Oh yes?

   Obama’s policies, such as raising the minimum wage, insulating homes, redistributive tax cuts, adopting paid leave, making the US a leader on Climate Change and fighting attacks on workers’ rights to organise would suggest otherwise. Did you not read that?

   Key to HS: “you’re an idiot’.
9. gingercrush 9

   7 November 2008 at 1:24 pm

   Oh please Matthew Pilott be quiet. The blog article simply doesn’t stand up to basic english and is in my opinion largely illiterate. Its not just me that is having trouble trying to work out what Steve Pierson is saying.
10. higherstandard 10

    7 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

    HS to Matthew

    “I think Key’s talking to you and not me.”
11. Matthew Pilott 11

    7 November 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Milo – you didn’t understand the abortion one. not my fault. try again – very simple stuff – Key voted for a bill that would have restricted ‘abortion on demand’.

    climate change – you made a joke (a good one) but that doesn’t disprove the point. We’re not talking about Australian Climate Change.

    Fuel economy regs – Labour wanted them, I think National voted against them.

    Domestic violence – we could call it a draw – but Labour has done a whole lot. Clearly Key doesn’t want it to increase, but labour’s really gone on the offensive (so to speak) with it’s not ok. Haven’t seen a similar proposal from Key/Nat.

    Womens issues – try Here.

    ECE – national aren’t a big fan of the idea and never were, whereas Obama’s policy is very much like Labour 2005.

    War in Iraq – you made another sort-of joke, but doesn’t prove the point. Labour didn’t want to go to Iraq, nor did Obama. Key wanted us there, as did Bush and McCain.
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    7 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    HS – nope. Nice substantial response though.

    GC – Nope. As said, you might find it hard to understand, but that doesn’t equate with SP grasping at straws, and a fair few others seem to be able to understand to the point where they can attempt a rebuttal.
13. Rod 13

    7 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    What’s all this misleading nonsense about Labour and Helen keeping us out of Iraq. For goodness sake, you think we are stupid? She sent NZ Army troops to Iraq, and there is no getting away from that.

    To claim John Key “would have” when Helen did is weird propaganda, the likes of which we expect from North Korea, not a western democracy like NZ.

    And she sent troops to East Timor, Afghanistan, the Islands and umpteen other peacekeeping places – probably more NZ troops have served in more places overseas under Helen as PM than any other PM since World War 2. So who is the more militaristic leader? Helen or John?

    Some intellectual honesty please.
14. QoT 14

    7 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Are the commenters who bitch about this being incomprehensible reading a different post to me?

    Bold = point of policy from Obama.

    Not-in-bold = SP’s commentary on this policy in relation to John Key.

    Ain’t rocket science, people.
15. milo 15

    7 November 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Yeah, Matthew, I’m kind of messing with you. At least I’m only doing it with a blog post, and not a megaphone. 🙂

    I do think all these arguments, campaigns, coverage and the like are terribly exciting. It’s all a wonderful celebration of our democracy. In fact, it’s starting to have quite a festive atmosphere – no matter whoever wins.

    Did you catch Michael Cullen’s comment “There were lots of tooting horns and not many people trying to run us over so we’re very hopeful.” Classic !
16. Scribe 16

    7 November 2008 at 1:40 pm

    MP,

    Milo – you didn’t understand the abortion one. not my fault. try again – very simple stuff – Key voted for a bill that would have restricted ‘abortion on demand’.

    Wrong. No matter how hard you, Gina, SP and I/S try, you can’t tag key as some sort of anti-abortionist. It’s simply not true.

    He supported alternate candidates for appointments to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

    And “abortion on demand” is not allowed in this country, so even if you were right — which you’re not — he’d simply be seeking adherence to the laws of this land.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    7 November 2008 at 1:49 pm

    I know milo, I don’t mind. Too tired and rushed to really distinguish. Quite like elections, believe it or not. I did miss that comment from Cullen, he’s really got quite a sharp wit.

    Scribe – I’d happily refer people to the other thread you had that discussion but can’t remember which one. I’m not nearly as interested (passionate being a better word) in the debate as others are (can’t focus on everything) so I gave a layman’s view. I don’t see how it can be construed as any other way. If he wants to advance actions that will restrict abortions, whether this means the letter of the law is being followed or not, then he’s trying to restrict abortion. Isn’t that what the bill would have done?

    Rod, if you’re going to talk about intellectual honesty, two points. We sent troops to Iraq, engineers, to assist with reconstruction. If you want to push that barrow, at least mention the SAS in Afghanistan.

    Key has never had command over Her Majesty’s Royal New Zealand Navy, Her Majesty’s Royal New Zealand Army or Her Majesty’s Royal New Zealand ‘Air Force’, so there’s no way Key could have committed troops. To say that means he’s less militaristic than Clark is pure dishonesty.
18. Swampy 18

    7 November 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Matthew Pilott
    November 7, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    “Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.
    Look at national’s labour policy it is designed to smash the unions as they tried to do and largely succeded in doing in the nineties. On unions they’re polar opposites.”

    National’s policy is about making sure we do not have Labour Party laws that were passed so the Labour Party’s own affiliates (unions) are put in a position of power to enrich themselves (and the Labour Party) at workers’ and employers’ expense.

    The fees that unions charge cover far more than their day to day expenses, workplace campaigning, health and safety etc. Where does the EPMU get $60,000 to donate to the Labour Party at election time. Did they have a whip round or is there just that much, maybe a lot more, sitting in the bank that they have collected off the hundreds of dollars that some (maybe all) members pays every year in fees.

    Now, I think Matt McCarten seems to be the only honest unionist out there, he isn’t affiliated with a political party and is charging realistic fees and paying his staff realistic wages, not charging fees so he can have millions of dollars of assets on his annual accounts.
19. Scribe 19

    7 November 2008 at 1:58 pm

    MP,

    The abortion vote Gina, I/S, SP and others refer to was a vote for who the members of the abortion supervisory committee were going to be. It wasn’t a bill to change any part of the law.

    I enjoy debating with you normally, but as you’ve admitted — and clearly demonstrated — you don’t know much about this topic, I ask you not to spread false propaganda that others on the Left are spreading.
20. Quoth the Raven 20

    7 November 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Phoebe Fletcher has a good post on the Obama key thing over at Tumeke.
21. Matthew Pilott 21

    7 November 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Scribe – as I gathered, changing the membership of that supervisory committee would have quite an impact on abortions in NZ. What would that effect be?
22. Janice 22

    7 November 2008 at 4:21 pm

    HS: “The Democrats and Republicans in the USA are way to the right of the NZ National party.”

    Bollocks!!!! National is running neck and neck with Dubya with borh still trumpeting out-dated free market policies which even Greenspan viewed as flawed very recently while it is worth bearing in mind that good ol’ Franklin D Roosevelt ( who was around at that time) said, “any political party which attacks Unions is fascist.” Now why would he say such a thing?
23. jo zinny 23

    7 November 2008 at 6:09 pm

    HS,
    The Democrats and Republicans in the USA are way to the right of the NZ National party.

    I’ve just spotted Janice’s take of the same assertion you made. Instead of of following her line therefore allow me ask you prove yo-self the Great Asserter. How come what that sentence says makes sense?

    C’mon now give it a try, go for my GA rating..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS