Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Islander, it will come as no surprise that Helen Clark agrees with your assessment:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10523949On the other hand, Herald columnist John Roughan has wood (and that's before the second part of the biography ran):
Shrewd Key must follow his instincts
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10523529&pnum=0... I felt something close to excitement at the idea of a forex trader running the country.
-
But it's all part of our rotation I guess.
I thought we had been assured that "strategy" was consigned to the past. It worked so well last time, after all.
-
With impeccable timing, Steven Joyce de-lurks:
Controversial figure gets top Nats list spot
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4634192a6160.htmlHis nomination is likely to go down poorly with some in National's caucus, who believe he remains tainted from his association with the Brethren and Brash and disagreed with his controversial campaigning methods during the 2005 election.
-
Doesn't Winston's brother come across as a similarly evasive little so and so. Ick.
-
Actually, just noticed your comment about Cullen eating Key up. That's sure not how I remember the last election campaign.
-
Kyle, I agree - although both parties have been implementing their plans for a long time now. National clearly intends not giving voters anything to disagree with yet, which as you say will be judged smart if it works. Labour so far seems to be about resisting that lack of substance (now has traction with media) and pushing the idea that there's a hidden agenda.
Empty vanity pieces like the Herald's therefore might not benefit either party much. However, I think Russell summed up the tone of the story beautifully on another thread: "Why Is John Key So Freaking Amazing?"
Personally, I've always been more concerned by the frontbench fossils and backroom agents surrounding Key than by the smiling assassin himself.
-
Thanks, Sofie. There's a quote from Helen Clark in that story which captures what I was saying quite well:
"It comes back to the point - we do not know what this man stands for, if anything, except desperation to win an election. I don't think he can be taken seriously."
I can understand her taking that position, and if Key is really the decent guy he seems then why aren't National simply letting him be himself? Is he getting poor advice?
-
Craig, I'm not that interested in "hard-hitting" given the lack of journalistic talent and resourcing to guarantee it's done well.
For me, it's the contrast between "unauthorised" and the ass-licking yawnfest they've produced. If I want that I'll read Women's Day. The most favourable interpretation is taken everywhere except that passage I quoted. Even that has the same naive breathless tone I'd expect from a junior reporter, and it diminishes my trust in the content all the more. Don't worry, I'm with you on that.
The actual beliefs and plans of someone putting themselves forward as Prime Minister seem highly relevant - and that is what the Herald's hagiography promised. I know people's positions shift over time, but their underlying beliefs about what's right and wrong are a useful guide when voters are deciding whether to hand over power to someone they know little about. Especially when he's surrounded by the same dodgy characters that were shown last election to have said one thing while sneakily planning another. You can argue with that however you like, Craig, but it does explain the heightened suspicion about whether Key and co are genuine this time around. Refusing to answer questions about Crosby Textor do not help that perception.
And Jeremy, you seem to be making wild assumptions that kiwiblog fringe = kiwiblog associates = national members = craig. You can do better, I'm sure, but free speech means you can expect sloppy thinking to be challenged. Enjoy.
-
Jeremy, read the story - even the Herald is acknowledging those quotes from Key mean exactly what you fear.
-
Anyone hoping that part two of the Herald's John Key piece would be hard hitting must be disappointed. The fawning tone detracts, with classics like:
Key has been a difficult target for Labour to pin down because he is acutely sensitive to public opinion and backs his instincts.
Right. Although it does at least answer one crucial concern:
The difference between the 2003 Key and the 2008 Key, however, raises the question of which John Key is the real Key. Which Key would be Prime Minister?
...
"My underlying philosophies remain the same."So his beliefs remain the same, the difference is in the language?
"Yeah, I think that's largely correct."
This is a startling admission which suggests that the real John Key is actually the John Key who originally entered Parliament, not the version we see today.
Given the amount of effort the Herald claims went into this "project", the writing seems embarrassingly junior in tone. I wonder if they feel they got their money's worth?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 … 1971 Older→ First