Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to BenWilson,
they could also be saying that they’re resigned to it.
Or they just don't believe it.
If you trust Key, and he keeps saying 'yes we talk to bloggers' as if that's all it amounts to, and 'left-wing smear campaign' - maybe that's all it takes. Seems to be the end of the story for many.
The other refrain is 'I'm tired of it'. That's harder for me to fathom, because it's a half- acknowledgement there's 'something to see here'. But let's not talk about it because it's- nasty? boring? difficult? clashes with my other beliefs?
I find myself looking sideways at these people. -
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Russell Brown,
Let’s disagree with each other rather than make accusations.
Sorry Pharmachick. Not an accusation, just a stupid attempt at humour.
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Seriously, you come across as a stooge.
BigPharmaChick - Carrick Graham in a chicken suit?
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Alfie,
The cacophony of noise experienced last night
There were times when Key’s mic was almost as distorted as his ‘arguments’.
Anyone know who produced it? -
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to Luke Williamson,
I am getting a really nauseous feeling from knowing that the PM and senior Minister of the country are standing up and lying to my face. I’m not so naive that I don’t expect partisan politicking, but this is just awful.
Me too. Is there a stage when you move past anger to sadness?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
My party vote – well that’s for me to decide
Thanks Craig. This line of questioning makes me queasy. I'm likely as anyone to call you on fact, interpretation or opinion. But the idea anyone's voting choice needs to be 'outed' (why? to 'validate' or 'invalidate' their opinions and ideas? think about how that plays!) is ghastly.
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Cecelia,
Was the one gaffe in the context of the whole debate really worth the prominence it has been given in the Herald this am?
I looked at the online Herald. Almost nothing on the debate- the first two election stories were 'Hacker hits back at Collins' denial' and some 'Nick Smith pilloried at housing debate' -neither what National would have wanted.
I guess the print version led with 'Another Gaffe from Tricky Dave'? -
After the last few weeks and the first debate, Key needed a performance that re-energised the base. Hard-core Nat supporters love his snarky wit and put-downs, and they gave Key a clear win. He definitely did what was needed there.
Not so sure it will have worked on swing voters. Cunliffe is auditioning for Prime Minister, and he played that fairly well – apart from the one moment. Labour’s problem is we may see that one moment again and again, and it will play poorly.
When the core narrative was controlled by National, it was all about Cunliffe being tricky, unlikeable, or gaffe-prone. So the slightest gaffe was amplified.
But they don’t control the story now. It could go anywhere over the next two weeks. I don’t think McCarten or Joyce will be getting much sleep. -
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Apparently JK is going to insert CERA into his Office.
I hope he’s not thinking he can use the magical super-legal powers of the ‘minister for the Canterbury recovery’ to step outside reality and launch the masterplan to morph Chch into Planet Key … :)
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Angela Hart,
some would see it as vindication.
I can just hear it. “Look, NZers gave us a clear mandate to smear, obfuscate and manipulate. It would be quite wrong for us to do some sort of U-turn now the votes have been counted.”