Why Lee is banned from interviews

Written By: - Date published: 7:23 pm, May 19th, 2009 - 122 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, mt albert - Tags:

Rumour has it Melissa has been banned from giving formal interviews by National’s leadership but what’s the harm in answering a few questions from a reporter? Let’s see:

Garner tries to tempt her into repeating her motorway comments but she doesn’t need the help.

She is totally self-centred. Notice how all her stories are about how people love her personally. Not how they like National policies or how she has learned something from them. The story she tells of two long-time voters who were convinced by their 7-year old to change to support her instead is classic. Melissa, you can have them. In fact, you can have all the voters who vote according to advice of 7-year olds.

About 4 minutes through she basically says people are anti-supercity

  • “people are concerned about it whether they will have actually representation on it”
  • “they like the idea of the former Mt Albert Borough Council”
  • “a lot of people kind of have this idea that they’re not going to have a say”
  • “the main thing people in Mt Albert are worried about is whether the 12, umm, the 12…”.

Then she has a mini mental collapse, not because she realised she is disasterously off-message, but because she doesn’t know the details of the proposal.

No wonder they’re not letting her go to tonight’s supercity meeting.

Don’t buy this rubbish about ‘other bookings’ that she can’t name. She’s not going because they can’t trust her not to have another brain explosion.

Kudos to TV3 for putting up the whole interview (before 6pm!).

122 comments on “Why Lee is banned from interviews ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tim Ellis 1
    19 May 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Nice spin, Eddie. The real reason Lee isn’t going to the supercity meeting is that it was a jack-up by cityvision’s chairman of eden/albert (who I understand lives in Parnell), who didn’t even invite her, but made sure Norman and Shearer were coming along.

    • Daveo 1.1
      19 May 2009 at 7:45 pm

      Nice spin, Tim. You’ve even recycled National’s “jack-up” line. I wonder, if Lee has all these prior engagements that are more important than fronting to a debate then why won’t she say what they are? Looks like Lee’s handlers don’t trust her to front up in public.

      Oh, and 4 minutes in – that’s painful. If you watch nothing else people, watch from 4 minutes in. Ouch. Trainwreck.

      • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1
        19 May 2009 at 8:24 pm

        It’s not spin daveo.

        Tim is just speaking from the heart.

        Which gives an insight into the way lowly banking auditors talk and think.

        Hence the econopocolypse.

    • Eddie 1.2
      19 May 2009 at 8:21 pm

      Hmm where did I read ‘jack-up’ today? Oh yeah Melissa Lee’s press release. Original thought – fail.

  2. The Voice of Reason 2
    19 May 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Cheers for the post, Eddie.

    I could not believe it when I saw it. Can’t wait for it to hit YouTube. Where was her mind? Where was her minder? If I was on her team, about thirty seconds in I’d have pretended I was Dipomatic Protection Squad, shouted gun, and shoved her into the nearest vehicle I could commandeer.

    Bye Melissa, thanks for playing.

    • Eddie 2.1
      19 May 2009 at 8:22 pm

      Already on there – go to our channel – thestandardnz

    • Chris G 2.2
      19 May 2009 at 10:48 pm

      and if the minder had been standing watching the interview with Paul henry where she failed about 5 times in a row to lie about the ‘South Auckland’ slur … Upon Henrys 5th ask of ‘So did you believe it at the time?’ they would have shouted:

      “For Fucks Sake Melissa, Lie already!!”

      Then exploded then and there when she Failed.

  3. deemac 3
    19 May 2009 at 7:43 pm

    you could almost feel sorry for her except that her massive ego means she can’t see how incompetent she is. The things that have tripped her up are standard political stuff that anyone aspiring to office should be able to cope with, not unfair media tricks. Truly gruesome!

  4. Tim Ellis 4
    19 May 2009 at 7:44 pm

    It makes me wonder why the Labour Party, the Greens, and the media are paying so much attention to her, if they’ve already written her off.

    • Daveo 4.1
      19 May 2009 at 7:46 pm

      Because like any trainwreck you don’t want to look but you just can’t resist. There’s something oddly compelling about the whole thing.

      If you’re trying to imply all the attention is because she’s a threat or something, well, you’re on your own there Tim.

      • Philonz 4.1.1
        20 May 2009 at 8:42 am

        It’s Sarah Palinesque. You just have to keep watching to find out what crazy thing she’ll say next. There’s also the worry that some people might actually vote for her.

    • Anita 4.2
      19 May 2009 at 7:55 pm

      Because 2011 is more important that Mt Albert. Can they make Lee’s flaws colour National and Key? Can they turn her into a lame duck for the next 2.5 years?

      • Tim Ellis 4.2.1
        19 May 2009 at 8:02 pm

        I wouldn’t be so sure Anita. The media haven’t focussed on Mr Norman or Mr Shearer yet. They’ll have their turn in the limelight.

        Labour can only shield Mr Shearer by having every front bencher dig into Lee in press release after press release, and setup after setup (like this evening’s meeting at the school) for so long.

        There’s an amusing degree of hypocrisy from commenters (including Eddie) who claim that Lee is being gagged, when she’s had more appearances in the media by a large factor than her Labour Party opponent, and almost every time Labour are mentioned in a Mount Albert story, it’s either Mr Goff, Mr Mallard, Mrs King, or Mr Hughes fronting the story instead of Mr Shearer.

        • Anita 4.2.1.1
          19 May 2009 at 8:03 pm

          I’m not saying that Labour’s tactics will be effective 🙂

          You asked why Labour would still focus on her if they had genuinely written her off, I answered that question.

        • Eddie 4.2.1.2
          19 May 2009 at 8:20 pm

          Oh dear, still on the ‘any publicity is good publicity’ fallacy are we Tim?

          I’m not seeing Shearer being sheilded at all, he just doesn’t keep fu*king up on camera.

        • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.3
          19 May 2009 at 8:38 pm

          point. laugh.

          So are all candidate meetings set ups Tim? Or just ones where Lee might have to defend govt policy?

          It’s not the opposition’s (or the media’s) fault your candidate sux Tim, or that the govts policy is hard to defend at the moment.

          • Tim Ellis 4.2.1.3.1
            19 May 2009 at 8:56 pm

            No, PB, not all candidate meetings are set-ups. Just the ones organised by Labour Party activists in which the Labour and Green candidates are given a day to prepare, while the National Party candidate has to chase up the morning of the meeting, only for the national party’s candidate’s response to the meeting request gets included in a Green Party press release.

            Yes it was a set-up. Would David Shearer and Russel Norman walk into a meeting prepared by the Business Roundtable?

            I assume the media were at this meeting. I don’t doubt they will be able to confirm that pretty much everybody there were either Green or Labour Party activists.

            Lee has much better things to do with her time than walk into Labour Party set-ups, PB.

            There is an auckland university candidate’s meeting on tomorrow night, which has been organised well in advance. There will be many other candidate meetings organised during the campaign. Lots of opportunities for undecided voters to show up and see the candidate. Walking into a Labour Party jack-up isn’t one of them.

          • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.3.2
            19 May 2009 at 9:07 pm

            Oh noes the greens have efficient media strategy and Labour party members are setting up meet the candidate meetings!

            It’s an election campaign Tim. It is kind of obvious that Lee needs time to get up to speed on the issues, I’ll grant you, and it’s a shame that the government that she is a part of is leaving her in the dark about policy, but that’s not the opposition’s fault.

            And you may have noticed that the greens and labour are hardly working hand in glove to defeat Lee. As she herself said, Norman entering the race is the only chance she’s got.

          • Eddie 4.2.1.3.3
            19 May 2009 at 9:13 pm

            Tim. You’re funny because you run the lines like an insider then you write things like “Would David Shearer and Russel Norman walk into a meeting prepared by the Business Roundtable?”

            Of course they would. Orgs like the Business Roundtable and the unions – they’re the ones who organise nearly all candidate meetings. They’re the orgs with the motivation. Yeah, candidates go even when the host organisation is from the other side, it’s normal. There’s heaps of vid on Youtube of people like Garrett union-held candidate meetings.

            On second thoughts, an insider wouldn’t be so blatant in running the lines. Sorry, I retract that.

        • mickysavage 4.2.1.4
          19 May 2009 at 9:58 pm

          Tim

          She is the worst candidate I have seen, whether for a by election or a general election. She is meant to be one of National’s up and coming stars and was supported to counter the links that Labour has with the ethnic communities.

          She is incompetent, Raymond Huo is Labour’s equivalent candidate and he is intellingent, personable and sophisticated, everything she is not.

          Why is there a debate about this? Has reality somehow changed?

          • DeeDub 4.2.1.4.1
            19 May 2009 at 10:17 pm

            Her maiden speech should have been a dead giveaway…. turgid hardly covers the tone.

            Ego=10 Talent=2

          • Anita 4.2.1.4.2
            19 May 2009 at 10:27 pm

            mickysavage,

            I’m not at all sure you’re right. I’ve seen some dreadful small party candidates, and some pretty bad larger party ones too. Take some of the Labour candidates in safe National seats, and vice versa, last year they would’ve buckled at least as badly under this kind of pressure.

            She is probably the worst candidate in a serious contest in quite a while.

            She also has the potential to be the highest profile srcew up for a candidate in quite a while, not just in terms of the Mt Albert outcome but also the flow on.

            National couldn’t’ve won with anyone else, so perhaps the risk was worth taking. The stakes are pretty high, for her political career if nothing else.

        • Trevor Mallard 4.2.1.5
          20 May 2009 at 8:03 am

          The only time I have commented in MSM on Lee it was when TV3 interviewed me on the Lee NZonAir matter as former Broadcasting Minister.

          Tim our candidate fronts. John Keys handpicked one doesn’t. Last night once again we saw why she shouldn’t.

          Now it is too late to change.

    • inpassing 4.3
      19 May 2009 at 8:35 pm

      written her off, Tim, nay—for goodness sake… how could ego be written off in the newly minted ego-centric-city!!!

      So informative.. positively futures.. wot!

  5. serpico 5
    19 May 2009 at 7:44 pm

    And people wonder why politicians are despised.

  6. Ms X 6
    19 May 2009 at 7:46 pm

    35 ‘you knows’ – this woman was on television?

    • Anita 6.1
      19 May 2009 at 8:02 pm

      Did you notice the “eh!” at the beginning too? I reckon she’s working very hard to sound like a kiwi born-and-bred.

  7. Anita 7
    19 May 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Who are the two Nats in the background?

    Plus, is “old ladies baking pies for me” supposed to be a signal that the National core hasn’t abandoned her? It sounds like heartland National to me.

    • DougL 7.1
      19 May 2009 at 8:19 pm

      Looks like John Carter and Jackie Dean

    • Eddie 7.2
      19 May 2009 at 8:23 pm

      Yeah I wasn’t going to mention that but cut the sentence because the flow was already bad enough – they’re David Carter and Nikki Kaye.

      edit: John Carter… still think it’s Nikki Kaye but there are several short blondes

  8. illuminatedtiger 8
    19 May 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Why didn’t she just stick with presenting TV?

  10. dave 10
    19 May 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Wrong Eddie. You`re too close to the action to see the wood from the trees.

  11. Eddie 11
    19 May 2009 at 8:44 pm

    The expression is ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’, your version makes no sense.

    Yeah, TV’s great, I feel like I could reach out and touch Lee. Oh, isn’t that what you mean?

    Not sure the what forest (or wood or whatever) you think I’m missing is. Are you saying that while I’m writing about the individual mistakes in Lee’s fu#kup-a-day campaign voters are saying ‘boy, I love a candidate who’s consistent, even if consistently incompetent’?

    • michael 11.1
      19 May 2009 at 8:48 pm

      Dave’s problem is he’s been reading too much whaleoil. Still ringing people up and accusing them of writing for the standard Dave?

  12. the sprout 12
    19 May 2009 at 8:44 pm

    Stunning. What were National ever thinking.

  13. dave 13
    19 May 2009 at 8:51 pm

    Sorry Eddie, meaning cant see the wood for the trees is the actual idiom. If you dont know what an idiom is, ask some of your Mt Albert mates,. I know exactly what you’re missing even if you don’t, and it has nothing to do with ” individual mistakes in Lee’s fu#kup-a-day campaign”.

    • andy 13.1
      19 May 2009 at 9:08 pm

      Here is my idiom about Lee’s tv appearance:

      She can’t think straight

      or this:

      can’t tell arse from elbow

      or this:

      Between A Rock And A Hard Place……………!!!!111!

      Captcha: silicon mother

    • Eddie 13.2
      19 May 2009 at 9:14 pm

      We say ‘forest for the trees’ in my parts’ and you wrote ‘wood from the trees’ it was confusing.

    • wtl 13.3
      19 May 2009 at 9:14 pm

      yeah, but you said ‘wood FROM the trees’ the first time… wood, forest, same thing

    • michael 13.4
      19 May 2009 at 9:15 pm

      you’re all making one fundamental mistake, and that’s to take this former student journalist and serial prank caller seriously.

      • andy 13.4.1
        19 May 2009 at 9:20 pm

        ‘Back To The Drawing Board’ then cause she ‘Can’t Cut The Mustard’

        zing!

    • Zetetic 13.5
      19 May 2009 at 9:55 pm

      dave reminds me of this kid I knew growing up.

      He came to school one day and said ‘I’ve got this awesome dog, he’s so cool, you should all be so jealous’

      ‘Let’s see this dog’ I said

      ‘Nah, you can’t just believe’ he said

      Turned out dude didn’t have a dog.

      Front up with whatever you’re talking about, dave. Or I’ll just assume you’re a kid boasting about a dog he doesn’t have.

    • Killinginthenameof 13.6
      19 May 2009 at 11:58 pm

      What dave is trying to tell you is that he is having trouble reconciling between Lee’s daily fuck ups, and his delusional belief (as supplied by DPF and failoil, see: useful idiot) that Lee is going to win.

  14. Tim Ellis 14
    19 May 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Eddie, anybody would think that you’re an insider from some of the lines you’re running. Off topic I know, and it wasn’t meant as a thread-jack, but to respond to your claim that I’m an insider, the answer is no.

    • andy 14.1
      19 May 2009 at 9:24 pm

      Tim you “protest too much”.

      These idioms are fun 🙂

      But that is the last on this thread, off to watch the Lee clips again. They need a David Attenborough nature documentary voice over or a sports commentary mash up…

      • Tim Ellis 14.1.1
        19 May 2009 at 9:26 pm

        Andy, I’m responding because I think it was r0b who pointed out a while back that I hadn’t denied whether I worked in the national party research unit. In fact I had denied it and chose to ignore further references to it and when I ignored it people accused me again of having such a role and said it was suspicious that I hadn’t denied it.

        • Eddie 14.1.1.1
          19 May 2009 at 9:57 pm

          Tim. I know you’re not, just teasing 🙂

        • andy 14.1.1.2
          19 May 2009 at 10:03 pm

          Tim, you work so hard for the Nats (pro bono) and your arguments seem to come straight from inside the Nats spin department, it does make one wonder. But fair enough, you just defend the indefensible for fun… 🙂

          • Chris G 14.1.1.2.1
            19 May 2009 at 10:53 pm

            Is that altruism being evident in right-wingers? surely not.

          • lprent 14.1.1.2.2
            20 May 2009 at 7:57 am

            I’m going to start banning for speculation on where people work shortly. I find it unproductive to spend my bus time on. Chews my bandwidth for no real info.

  15. John Dalley 15
    19 May 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Melissa Lee. “The gift that just keeps on giving”

    • burt 15.1
      19 May 2009 at 11:08 pm

      John Dalley

      If you google ‘The gift that just keeps on giving site:www.whaleoil.co.nz’ you will find that catchy phrase has some serious political baggage attached to it.

      But if National exonerate her in a whitewash inquiry over the next few years I’ll join you in demanding whale adds her to his elite squad.

  16. Frankie 16
    19 May 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Other candidates were invited to attend the “super city ” meeting three days ago and were informed that all candidates from the major parties were attending (including Melissa Lee)

  17. toad 17
    19 May 2009 at 10:28 pm

    Melissa Lee’s most significant contribution in that interview was:

    I’m all over the place

    !

    That’s gotta be the one thing she has said in this campaign that has been correct.

  18. gingercrush 18
    19 May 2009 at 10:29 pm

    DeeDub. You know crap. Lee’s maiden speech was superb and got a standing ovation from all sides of the house. . Post-maiden speech she has been a disaster. But that maiden speech was very good.

    She is a train wreck. And to think a few weeks back I was trying to say she was talented to Gobsmacked. Though I would actually like to hear from Shearer. He is the front runner. Everyone literally agrees he is likely to win this election. So why aren’t the TV news and radio stations and newspapers seeking questions and answers from him. Having interviews with him etc etc. Yes there has been a few. But this is the man that will win Mt. Albert. Shouldn’t we actually know who he is?

    • Chris G 18.1
      19 May 2009 at 10:56 pm

      Farrar seems to know a lot about him GC. Why, surely you have already read his smarmy posts about Shearer being a supposed mole?

      • gingercrush 18.1.1
        19 May 2009 at 11:01 pm

        I thought Whaleoil was spinning the supposed mole story. Yes I am aware what the right-wing blogs have been saying about Shearer, I find it rather meaningless. The fact is the media should be doing its job and lettings us the public know exactly who this guy is that will be in Parliament in a months time. Its fair enough, they’ve targeted Lee. But its now time to learn who the hell is Shearer.

    • lprent 18.2
      20 May 2009 at 8:02 am

      It is a local campaign. So shearer is doing his work locally. Go to Mt Albert and you will find both him and his campaign everywhere.
      Whereas it is hard to find anything from national apart from hoardings

    • Philonz 18.3
      20 May 2009 at 8:54 am

      Fair point gc. Lee was not the best choice for a bi-election which would be the focus of intense national coverage. The tactics of both National and Labour are puzzling. Lee seems to be there without support, digging herself a hole. Shearer might be campaigning but can barely be seen behind the party muscle that labour seem to be wheeling in to Mt Albert. I swear I’ve seen more pictures of Goff, King, Mallard, Chauvel et al than Shearer himself, and he’s the one that’s supposed to not be busy with other parliamentary business..

      • lprent 18.3.1
        20 May 2009 at 10:32 am

        It is one of the few ‘joys’ of being in opposition. When ministers are fiddling with their portfolios, the opposition’s heavy hitters are relatively free. Did you ever consider why governments usually lose by-elections?

      • Frankie 18.3.2
        20 May 2009 at 8:58 pm

        You obviously have not driven through Mt Albert – you will see plenty of pictures of David Shearer and you will more than likely see the man himself talking to local groups and engaging with ordinary citizens, in a coherent and personable manner.

      • Frankie 18.3.3
        20 May 2009 at 9:01 pm

        Philonz – you need to take a drive through Mt Albert. Not only will you see plenty of pictures of Shearer you will most likely see the man himself out and about talking to the people and meeting local groups.

  19. gingercrush 19
    19 May 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Eddie all your posts sound like Labour spin. You know there are accusations all over the blogosphere instigating you as working directly with Labour. Therefore,You can’t possibly accuse Ellis of spinning things for National when you do the exact same thing with Labour. Tim, this isn’t the “Tim Ellis Show”, you need to shut up sometimes. You can’t defend Lee she has been a walking disaster. Most on the right have simply given up and been keeping their mouths shut. I think you should do the same.

    • Chris G 19.1
      19 May 2009 at 10:58 pm

      “You know there are accusations all over the blogosphere instigating you”

      Theres probably accusations all over the blogosphere that Elvis is alive also GC… Maybe you should go look at them??

      • gingercrush 19.1.1
        19 May 2009 at 11:05 pm

        Well I actually don’t care for the accusations of who The Standard people work for. I find it all dumbfounding. I tend though to think that people who are accused of being insiders themselves shouldn’t go attacking others for being insiders for a different political party. That could be applied to many blogs including PA, Kiwiblog, WOil (requires moderation so can’t mention it) and of course this blog. If these blogs actually just kept that to themselves we the people who frequent blogs would be better off as a result.

    • michael 19.2
      19 May 2009 at 11:13 pm

      by all over the blogosphere you mean whaleoil and his clones. anyone who knows the characters he’s talking about knows what a joke it is.

    • Killinginthenameof 19.3
      19 May 2009 at 11:51 pm

      Notice how GC breathlessly goes from “accusations all over the blogospher” to working for the Labour party.

      Your missing that vital middle step, call it premise 2 if you like, the bit that proves what you have just claimed is true.

      • gingercrush 19.3.1
        19 May 2009 at 11:59 pm

        I didn’t intend on asserting Eddie was working with the Labour Paty that wasn’t my intention. . My point is when you are accused of spinning for the Labour Party you can’t in turn accuse others of spinning for the National Party. So if I made it look like I was accusing Eddie of being in the Labour Party. I therefore apologise because it wasn’t my intention.

    • lprent 19.4
      20 May 2009 at 7:49 am

      He isn’t. But talk all you like elsewhere on the topic. However I would suggest that you discontinue doing it here

  20. Eddie 20
    19 May 2009 at 11:10 pm

    Fair point about not having a go at Tim in that way. I should have left it at ‘stop running the lines’.

  21. No Lee-way 21
    19 May 2009 at 11:25 pm

    There was an ad about the meeting in last week’s Central Leader. She has no excuse for not knowing there would be a meeting on the Super City

  22. Will de Cleene 22
    19 May 2009 at 11:55 pm

    The Sarah Palin Effect?

  23. jarbury 23
    19 May 2009 at 11:58 pm

    Will….. the similarities are quite disconcerting.

    • Anita 23.1
      20 May 2009 at 6:52 am

      Care to list them?

      • felix 23.1.1
        20 May 2009 at 11:16 am

        Anita, if you followed the Palin campaign closely you’ll be noticing mannerisms, speech patterns, and almost carbon copy reactions to situations in Lee.

        I know you think people are only comparing them because they’re both women, but please just look past their gender for a moment.

        • Anita 23.1.1.1
          20 May 2009 at 10:25 pm

          I didn’t pay enough attention to Palin’s campaign to see them 🙂

          I am curious as to why people make this link because they are different in such significant ways, and the similarities people talk about are also true of other candidates. Sure I’m interested in a gendered analysis, partly because I wonder how women who are politicians have to behave to succeed.

          • felix 23.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2009 at 11:46 pm

            Some of their similarities may be shared by some other candidates.

            That doesn’t diminish the comparison in any way.

      • Philonz 23.1.2
        20 May 2009 at 12:35 pm

        There’s also a certain desperation by the media to see her fail miserably.

        • felix 23.1.2.1
          20 May 2009 at 2:29 pm

          Yep, and in both cases that’s a reaction to the candidate’s overt contempt for public scrutiny.

        • Frankie 23.1.2.2
          20 May 2009 at 9:14 pm

          And she certainly is not disappointing them

  24. Irascible 24
    20 May 2009 at 12:58 am

    Vacuous, woolly headed, vain, egotistical, shallow and a good example of what happens when the auto-cue lights go out in front of the news-reader.
    Here was a woman articulating the public’s view of the Hide destroy the cities policies while desperately trying to toe the indefensible party line – “cue the “mind has gone blank” plea as the auto cue dropped out of sight and left her mind a perfect blank.
    Sorry Timmy you can’t defend this performance she even makes Key sound articulate!!!

  25. The Glob that is The Gisborne Herald 25
    20 May 2009 at 7:25 am

    I just reeled from watching the melissa brain fart moment.

    She wasn’t having trouble answering questions.
    She was having trouble with her hair.

    if she’d turned up to the meeting her hair would’ve hijacked her again and again so naturally she was doubled booked, a session at Rodney Wayne and she’ll be champing at the bit.
    Again.

    captcha: cures their

  26. Steve Withers 26
    20 May 2009 at 8:01 am

    In context, the brain fart isn’t a big deal. People have that sort of thing happen all the time. What does matter is what is said in the more coherent moments. Most of what Melissa Lee says in this clip is fairly reasonable. Her language could be a little more sensitive. I’m not sure calling people “old ladies” is going to make them feel warm and happy. That’s the same sort of lack of finesse displayed in the south Auckland moment. It’s fixable. But what is relevant is that this person was the choice of Party HQ for fronting National in a high profile campaign.

    Ooops.

  27. Nick 27
    20 May 2009 at 8:52 am

    I’ve got to this thread late and haven’t read all the comments but will say this.

    I have been a candidate in two general elections and in two local body elections. The simple fact is that a candidate should move heaven and earth to attend public meetings that have your competition present. Just last year there were meetings that our local electorate organisation only found about a few days prior but we made frantic efforts to get to them. I also remember hearing of meetings arranged by the “enemy’ which were probably stacked with other parties’ supporters and were not hugely in our favour. But the bottom line is that you “man up’, attend, and sell your policies and party. I don’t care what Melissa Lee had planned or who planned the meeting. Her attendance was mandatory.

  28. Maynard J 28
    20 May 2009 at 10:31 am

    I thought tv3 were being right bastards. People must cock up all the time, but it never gets played, since they only have limited time and it is a waste of time to show people struggling to put a sentence together. To make that the story – what does that show? I don’t think that what we saw is indicative of her skills or suitability as a Mt Albert MP, unless you want to try a tenuous ‘under pressure’ angle.

    I don’t know, maybe that has never happened before and they always get their lines right all the time, but I would be surprised.

    Suppose it was illustrative of the mess being created by rushing through the supercity without a decent plan and without letting the public know what is really going on, but that was not the angle tv3 took at all.

    • Pat 28.1
      20 May 2009 at 10:42 am

      It made me cringe to watch her have a brain fade, but anyone who has had to do any public speaking on the hoof (e.g. sales presentations, staff meetings etc) would know it happens from time to time. (Unless it only ever happens to me).

    • gobsmacked 28.2
      20 May 2009 at 10:57 am

      Maynard J

      I agree to some extent. Lee’s bumbling should not have been the lead story, when there are more serious issues around.

      But it’s worth pointing out that she’s not just a newbie candidate. She’s an MP, and will still be an MP after she loses the by-election. She will continue to make decisions about our lives, at our expense. So that limits my sympathy. She is not up to the job, but is going to keep it.

      To Tim and the spinners:

      John Boscawen (ACT) fronted up to the meeting, at a day’s notice. A Labour-Greens-ACT-Libertarianz jack-up is a conspiracy theory too far.

      • Tim Ellis 28.2.1
        20 May 2009 at 11:08 am

        Gobsmacked, I don’t think that Mr Boscawen turning up is very relevant. I doubt he is in very high demand and/or had many other things to do.

        I understand that of the 50 people there, almost all of them were wearing party rosettes or were media. Not a very useful way to spend a couple of hours talking to the converted or non-voters.

        • gobsmacked 28.2.1.1
          20 May 2009 at 11:16 am

          So Melissa Lee doesn’t want to face questions at public meetings, doesn’t want to face the media (see the secret campaign launch and the cancelled Radio Live interview at the weekend), and falls apart when a reporter catches up with her.

          But she does want to carry on being an MP. Why?

    • andy 28.3
      20 May 2009 at 11:10 am

      Garner threw her a life line when she lost it and she started talking over him. I suspect he thought ‘well F you, I tried to help’.

      I was sympathetic to her having a ‘moment’ until she just ploughed on through and over Garner. Then lost is again. If she had let him talk she could have reset or changed tack.

      She used her journalist attack training on a Journalist.

      I thought asking the guy if he was ‘homeless’ was the most uncomfortable cringe moment.

    • Tim Ellis 28.4
      20 May 2009 at 11:15 am

      I thought tv3 were being right bastards. People must cock up all the time, but it never gets played, since they only have limited time and it is a waste of time to show people struggling to put a sentence together. To make that the story – what does that show? I don’t think that what we saw is indicative of her skills or suitability as a Mt Albert MP, unless you want to try a tenuous ‘under pressure’ angle.

      I agree Maynard J. Mr Garner appears to have been getting his own back because Lee appeared on Close Up last week instead of TV3. TV3’s coverage last night was malicious in my view.

      Mr Garner produced a blog on Thursday titled “Lee the Loser”. It seems he has made his mind up on the result. I suppose it saves having to pay for a poll to be done, but it’s a bit arrogant to reach the conclusion before talking to voters.

      • Maynard J 28.4.1
        20 May 2009 at 1:39 pm

        If there is one media thing I hate, it is the revenge thing. The Dom Post has or had a weekly ‘Feslier award’, named after the guy who thought he had all the media beat over some OIA request, and then got found out. As the ‘free press’ the high and mighty Spiteful God look is not a good one. Just ask Winston Peters.

        pat – yes indeed. When that happens there is nothing you can do. First time I have seen it happen to an MP though, they always have something to say!

        • Tim Ellis 28.4.1.1
          20 May 2009 at 3:19 pm

          That’s quite true, Mr Maynard. Mr Peters did become a bit of a victim of media pack-mentality treatment that was probably disproportionate to his crime. He didn’t help things at all by being so truculent with the media, though.

      • Frankie 28.4.2
        20 May 2009 at 9:19 pm

        Sorry Tim Ellis TV3 provided a long intro showing Melissa Lee handing out leaflets and asking people if they were homeless – it was not all Lee losing it. A fair coverage of her mornings work I would have thought!

  29. toad 29
    20 May 2009 at 11:16 am

    Nick said: I don’t care what Melissa Lee had planned or who planned the meeting. Her attendance was mandatory.

    Whatever it was she had planned, it wasn’t important enough for her to tweet about.

  30. Zaphod Beeblebrox 30
    20 May 2009 at 11:23 am

    Its strange that someone who was a journalist herself and a promising MP has become so frazzled that she is unable to get any of her message across.

    Then again, it might just say something about the fact that she was up against it from the start. All her talking points about the supercity could be interpreted as arguments AGAINST what is being proposed. She has obviously decided that it is a waste of time trying to argue against decentralisation of services and gone with the safe ‘I support local democracy’ line.

    It will be interesting if the rest of the Auckland Nat/ACT MP’s can perform any better when they have to front up. They will need to be good.

    Similarly, how does one talk to 300 families who are having their houses bulldozed or he many more whose lives will be disrupted by eight-ten years of construction through the neighbourhood.

    She would have to be a politicial genius to perform what is asked of her.

  31. felix 31
    20 May 2009 at 2:38 pm

    It’s probably not correct to call her a train-wreck, given the Nat’s attitude to public transport.

    6 car motorway pile-up might be more appropriate.

  32. quadboik 32
    20 May 2009 at 4:18 pm

    If you’d seen Lee’s performance this afternoon in the University of Auckland quad, the answer to this post’s headline would be self-evident.

  33. simon 33
    20 May 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Tim Ellis said

    “There is an auckland university candidate?s meeting on tomorrow night, which has been organised well in advance”

    Hey Tim maybe she should’ve “prior engagment” ed this one aswell…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573458

  34. gobsmacked 34
    20 May 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Meanwhile, here’s a gem. Funniest blog post title ever?

    http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/dpf/

    But then, Poneke was hardly alone. Back in April, everyone was proclaiming that Lee would be a top quality candidate for National (well, not everyone, but … *cough* … modesty forbids …) 🙂

    None of the pundits seem to have bothered doing the slightest bit of research first. Like, asking her questions.

  35. Pat 35
    20 May 2009 at 4:32 pm

    The attacks on Lee are getting out of hand now. The racist petition thing is just plain stupid.

    • gobsmacked 36.1
      20 May 2009 at 4:59 pm

      Yeah, she’ll probably pick up a sympathy vote now.

    • felix 36.2
      20 May 2009 at 6:39 pm

      Oh. My. God.

      So her angle now is “Look, I’ve already apologised once and it’s not my fault if you’re all too stupid to understand that”.

      The woman has nothing but contempt for anyone who hasn’t joined her fan club. It’s a really ugly quality and she’s no good at hiding it. Why? Because she sees nothing wrong with holding that attitude and therefore no reason to hide it.

      Tip for her handlers (don’t worry team, only a few weeks to go):

      If you think you’ve given an apology but everyone else is still waiting for one, then your apology was not very convincing and repeating the same phrase will not make it more so.

      • andy 36.2.1
        20 May 2009 at 6:58 pm

        She has a tin ear.

        I said up thread, asking the guy in the clip if he was homeless = Fail. Calling old ladies, old = Fail. Not repeating apology = Fail.

    • Chris G 36.3
      20 May 2009 at 9:06 pm

      Lovin the ‘end the drug war’ sign in the background. Good stuff.

  37. bilbo 37
    20 May 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Ye Gods the state of our tertiary students is rather depressing.

  38. Pat 38
    20 May 2009 at 5:06 pm

    There’s a certain Lord-of-the-Flies ugliness to the whole thing.

  39. simon 39
    20 May 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Having organised political debates at uni’s before, I’m bloody surprised DPF and John Carter let her attend.

    They must’ve known that she’d be targeted after her racist comments about a large number of Aucklanders aswell as the disingenuous ones about Mt Albert people.

    And of course the ethnic students, they (Lee/DPF/NAT) are targeting won’t get involved since they have better things to do at University.

    So no sympathy for Lee, except that her ego is clouding her judgement and the advice from NAT people is flawed so far.

    She should stick to invited guests only functions, like her Election campaign launch.

  40. mike 40
    20 May 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Anyone see shearer’s waffle (Garners words) regarding the super city tonight on 3?
    He was pathetic and made no sense at all.

    Lee must at last see the fog clearing if this idiot is allowed to speak unaided on the campaign trail

  41. SPC 41
    20 May 2009 at 11:06 pm

    I wonder how experienced a politician one would have to be to cope with the road issue and the Super-City issue without any advanced briefing … she was set up to fail.

    If there was any careful calculation to it (beyond there are Asians in Mount Albert) was it placing an Asian and a woman at that in this situation – possibly to gather Asian and women loyalty to National (because the other side were criticising the poor woman) – people in a tough situation dealing with tough issues …

    I hope not. In my opinion this government will be like the one of 75-84 and 90-99 and do immense harm to our nation and this time it really should be three strikes and they get depatched and politically buried once and for all.

  42. gobsmacked 42
    22 May 2009 at 9:32 am

    GOOD NEWS: Melissa Lee is no longer banned from giving interviews.

    Bad news: When she finally talks to the media …

    she announces she has already given up.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/05/22/1245b06e9ed2

    So, who should National supporters vote for now?

Links to post