So, just when Don Brash is in trouble, Ian Wishart "coincidentally" dumps his "explosive" pile of steaming sewage. While its a vicious smear, at the same time I'm left wondering whether this is really the best they can come up with. Sure, it might be shocking to conservative Christians like Wishart and his Brethren chums, but really, this is the Century of the Anchovy, you know.
More generally, my attitude to this is the same as it was in the case of Don Brash: I don't want to know, and I don't really care. It might be amusing, it might be titillating, it might be unexpected, but fundamentally its none of my business who other people screw, or how, or how many at once, or where, or what they prefer to use as props. Provided everyone involved is a consenting adult, then it is none of my business. I don't want politicians thinking about my bedroom, and I sure as hell don't want to think about theirs.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see whether National decides to go with the smear, and stands up in Parliament to demand that a Minister account for his (alleged) private sexual behaviour - something for which he has no Ministerial responsibility, unless he was doing it on the office desk - or whether they will treat Wishart's panty sniffing with the scorn it deserves, and vigorously disassociate themselves from their proxy.
Danyl: well, runing with it is asking for the same in return - but desperate people tend not to think too hard about the long term consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that from today's list of questions for oral answer, they're not touching it with a barge pole. Good.
ReplyDeleteI would have been amazed if National had asked questions about it. And really calling Wishart a National Party proxy is something you know not to be true.
ReplyDeleteSo vilifying people for being "creepy cults" and "chinless scarf wearers" is fine - that's just religion. Calling somebody "odious" and "cancerous" - well they probably deserved it. But sexual practices - hey, leave them alone, those are sacred!
ReplyDeleteAnd if sexual practices affect policy, or if somebody lies about their private life for political gain, or attacks somebody else's private life for political gain, how are they not fair game?
Personally, I wish Labour had never started this descent into slime with their comments in the House. But they did.
DPF: And really calling Wishart a National Party proxy is something you know not to be true.
ReplyDeleteAs I said last time, National are the intended beneficiaries, and its their leg Wishart is so urgently rubbing against. If they don't want to be tarred by the association, then maybe they should publicly disown it?
kiwi_donkey, do you really want to resume the "you started it" game?
ReplyDeleteall sides have been throwing a fair amount of rhetorical shit around (see: "most corrupt government ever"), but some suggest the descent truly began with Judith Collins and Rodney Hide leading the initial charge against DBP.
the point is that "you started it" just brings up more examples, from further and further back, of comments along these lines. and it doesn't get us anywhere.
dc_red:. Fair point.
ReplyDeleteIP: you would be the first to jump on board saying that Brash is cynically trying to highlight the issue by putting distance between himself and Wishart
ReplyDeleteActually, no. While I think Brash is dishonest in all sorts of ways, I'm quite willing to accept that he disapproves of these sorts of Nixonian tactics. And it would be nice if he said so.
OTOH, it now seems that how to handle National's sewer-dwelling supporters is now somebody else's problem...
This may be a little pedantic but when it comes to actual panty sniffing there isn't really anything fundimentally wrong with that. Comparing sniffers (I just bet they have their own jargon) to Wishart is doing them a disservice.
ReplyDeleteI/S:
ReplyDeleteHave you used up your "sneer" "quotes" "quota" for this month yet? If I said Nicky Hagar was a proxy for the Labour Party, because this book 'coincidentally' came along around the same time as new information about Field, the stadium debacle getting worse by the day, therefore it's it's painfully obvious who the "intended beneficiary" was, you'd laugh in my face.
Then again, there's no depravity for which the National Party and Don Brash aren't presumed guilty for, is there I/S? Sound a lot like Ian Wishart, in my book.
The worst thing about this disgusting smear is how mainstream outlets like the Herald and the ODT have picked it up. It seems that one need only invent allegations about a minister, and the newspapers will print it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Tim Murphy (NZ Herald editor)would print similar baseless allegations about himself - he is a public figure of great influence after all.
Craig: that's hardly fair. If Hagar were to wait for a period when there wasn't new info about Field coming out the book might never have been released.
ReplyDeleteHe's hardly a Labour Proxy. My guess is he despises them only a little less than national.
As for Whishart, Who really knows? He's way off my nut scale to really judge his motivations.
Craig: Indeed I would, if only for the underlying assumption that the Stadium matters. But seriously, I think Corngate is strong evidence in anyone's book that Hager isn't a Tool Of The Labour Party.
ReplyDeleteGiven the support Wishart has given National, he can't help but be seen as being theirs. National should do the decent thing and publicly disassociate themselves, unless they want to be tarred with his tactics.
I/S:
ReplyDeleteBy your argument, Wishart isn't a Tool of the National Party based on his coverage of the Winebox.
IP - since that time Wishart discovered God. His ethics changed.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that most in the National party diplore Wishart, but trip over to DPF's site to see how many do not, including it would seem, DPF himself. I think their feelings right now are strongly coloured by what has happened to Brash and a certain amount of illconsidered lashing out is taking place (which hopefully many will regret in times to come).
I also note that there are some MPs in the party who were very happy to collude with Wishart in the past and I find today's timing for the release pretty suspicious. It relates to the long running campaign to dislodge an electorate MP, I believe.
I very much hope I am wrong because we do need a strong and reasonably honest, centre right, alternative to Labour.
> but trip over to DPF's site to see how many do not
ReplyDeleteand a listen to people like cullen imply they seem to be pretty happy with Hager.
I think both are largely independant but if you give either the opportunity to screw a party from the opposite end of the political spectrum they will take it in a heartbeat and will always be able to find some support from the other party.
If anything worse for Hager because labour is more of an attacking party under helen than national was under brash.
Interesting that much of the public seemed to support axing brash because he wasn't good enough at screwing the public over ... as a good politician should apparently.
" Wishart discovered God. His ethics changed."
ReplyDeleteHe discovered something but I'm not sure it was 'God' as people generally envisage him/her. If it was, God's in trouble.
If anything worse for Hager because labour is more of an attacking party under helen than national was under brash.
ReplyDeleteOh, please. Brash has been questioning the integrity of the election result for months. You don't get much more attaking than that.
If you can find a titillating email in Hager's book I will be most surprised.
Wishart on the other hand seems to be relying on "evidence" trumped up by a discredited PI, highered by the Exclusive Brethren. The great extent latter's links to Don Brash are just now being exposed. I think the word "proxy" applies to Wishart, he might not know it but others do.
“When it was my turn,” continues the former student who'd refused to jump the vault, “I was brought into the hall. I was bent over and caned once over my trousers by Benson-Pope. I pleaded not to be caned again but was struck once more with the cane.
ReplyDelete“I remember Benson-Pope laughing while he caned me, and that's what got me the most. When I got home I realized I had blood on my bum.”
So when Benson-Pope accused Investigate of publishing ridiculous nonsense, he omitted to tell Close Up that the allegations actually came from within the official police file.
“Are you a bully?,” Mark Sainsbury asked Benson-Pope on TV.
“I don’t believe so.”
“Are you a liar?”
“Certainly not!”
The responses to those first two questions from Sainsbury were instantaneous. But the next question appeared to give Benson-Pope something to think about, and if you study his response carefully you’ll see he actually did not answer the question directly.
“Are you a pervert?”
(four seconds of silence, so questioner moves to fill the pregnant pause)
from investigate
do any of you really think it is still about consenting adults? There is no way I would let that sick fuck anywhere near my children