by frog
So, the new theory about Brash’s “gays are not mainstream New Zealanders” gaffe is that it was no gaffe at all. Rather, he is trying to do two things simultaneously: appeal to the homophobic and stay cool with gays. So, you have him saying on National Radio “gays are no mainstream” and then him “clarifying” the comment later in The Press. He wants to get the “I don’t like the poofs either!” message out there, but plead innocence when pressed on it.
Steve Maharey was right on the money when he said in a press release:
This is classic smear politics and is in line with Brash’s billboards, which imply that if you’re a member of an iwi, you aren’t a Kiwi.
Russell Brown argues that what makes all of this worse is that Brash knows exactly what he’s doing:
I’m sure Brash knows this very well, which is why he makes such an idiot of himself when he’s drawn to talk about it. His flip-flop on civil unions last year showed no sign of really coming from personal conviction … He is, rather, under direction. The wedge politics underlying National’s pitch to the electorate would be neutered by woolly inclusiveness. The idea is to foster a budding sense of resentment, of “mainstream” people feeling they are being ignored or done down at others’ expense. It’s the same strategy that sets “Iwi” against “Kiwis” on the billboards. Maori are not mainstream either. Very clever; very creepy.
Today’s Herald poll suggests that National’s divisiveness is winning it significant support. One can only hope that, as the campaign becomes more Presidential, Helen Clark’s far superior leadership skills will come to the fore. As Colin James says of Brash’s conference speech at the weekend:
His final line, “the goal that is within our grasp”, tailed off and left the hall silent, his eager, loving, yearning audience waiting dutifully for the cue for the standing ovation. Brash swayed goofishly for 10 seconds before mumbling an additional, lame, sentence to break the stillness.
The subliminal message he would have sent voters if any had happened along was: not quite ready for the big job. That is a dog whistle National does not want: one that sends the dog after rabbits instead of the ewes…
Clark has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the business of government. Brash’s pronouncements betray huge gaps in knowledge of history and portfolio complexities.
Indeed, Brash’s minders have to be very, very worried about the head-to-head leaders’ debates that will pit Clark against Brash several times in the last weeks of the campaign. All the available evidence suggests that Clark will wipe the floor with him.
Published in Campaign | Society & Culture by frog on Tue, June 28th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
fwog .. Bwash not hurt gay .. we dont let him .. you peoples vote for Hide in Epsom, and we vote for you somewheres ..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you gotta think of outcome fwog .. true bwash not as brash as helenglad but peoples sick of the bad money fwog .. bwash give us clean bill of health fwoggy . we spend carbon diswedits on the oxygen for yo hopsitoal .. you can take the coromandel if you twy fwog .., we know how you could get the cowomandel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can’t believe how blind somepeople are…
“Indeed, Brash’s minders have to be very, very worried about the head-to-head leaders’ debates that will pit Clark against Brash several times in the last weeks of the campaign. All the available evidence suggests that Clark will wipe the floor with him. ”
I would suggest that New Zealanders are smarter than that. Having a party leader who is good at debating and having a party worth voting for are 2 different things. If National is pulling ahead in the polls despite Brash’s flaws… it just shows that New Zealanders are finally seeing what the Labour party stands and rejecting it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
in end fwog youse like us get real seat that the peoples can believe in
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fwogg i knows i hogg pigg on your work but i not ..
you need to get real Greens now,
Winston Peters will divide this country in two ,.
he will achieve this by working in Governmentd and then
switching to the other side.
This truly is a kingmaker.
We know this
Greens .. Rod Donald is correct on this issue and i salute him for it
Winston is dngrs bd neas,
[ gulp he was also right about Bush]
you need Coromandel to bring green too Parliament,
a Maori seat is a Maori seat
you need representation yoselves
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If Helen was truly as all-conquering as Frog seems to think, then one would think she would not have turned down the 500 offers to date to debate Dr Brash.
But I am not complaining, as Al Gore found out there is nothing worse going into a debate with heightened expections.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David: I don’t think Clark all-conquering. Luckily for her, she’s up against an opponent with quite minimal leadership skills, especially in terms of grasp of a wide range of policy.
Prime Ministers generally turn down invitations to debate with the Leader of Opposition between elections. I don’t recall National PMs in recent history debating Labour leaders between elections (i.e. except in election campaigns), but perhaps David can correct me? The reason being, I suppose, that PMs don’t want to admit that the Leader of the Opposition is on the same level as them…
Anyway, it’s not me who thinks that Clark’s leadership skills are superior to Brash’s. It’s Colin James, who rightly points out that Brash doesn’t have anywhere near Clark’s encyclopaedic knowledge of policy. That Brash is out of his depth on anything other than financial policy becomes very clear whenever he’s interviewed in depth, and it will become very clear in the debates. This isn’t merely a stylistic point – it’s a concern on the “how can this person lead us if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?” level.
Incidentally, the view that Clark is a superior leader to Brash is not my opinion, it’s the opinion of NZers. 80% of those questioned in a recent TV3 poll said they believed Clark a capable leader, compared to 48% who believed that about Brash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Taking the last point first, polls on leadership issues and preferred PM always show an advantage for the incumbent.
Secondly while certainly the PM (and indeed any incumbent PM) will have a detailed knowledge of almost all issues, I think people greatly underestimate how much Dr Brash knows. He has studied and followed public policy issues for 20+ years. And he is very much a detail person.
Time will tell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, actually, in the last TV One poll before the 1999 election, Clark led Shipley 30-27 on preferred PM, so I’m not sure I agree with you on that one David. Clark’s lead is currently 39-20 over Brash in the same poll.
I judge how much Brash knows on his media performances and his ability to recall detail when being interviewed. It’s an understatement to say that I haven’t been impressed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was wondering if I needed to be picky, and say “except in final weeks of campaign”. Consider it said.
While Don has at times not had great media interviews (such as yesterday), I have also seen him handle a fully fledged Kim Hill assault without a ruffle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, okay, by way of a better comparison, Shipley and Clark were tied at 21-21 three months out from the 1999 election (in the August 1999 TV One poll). Three months out from this election, Clark has a 39-20 lead over Brash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Preferred PM polls mean absolutely nothing Frog. You can continue to clutch at straws all you like but the fact is that National is either tied with, or beating Labour in the polls that count.
And describing Brash as homophobic?? HA!! -he voted in favour of the Civil Union Bill in its first reading (and only voted against it afterward as he wanted it to be a democratic decision made by the nation).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew: Read my post carefully. I didn’t call him homophobic. I said he was trying to appeal to the homophobic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And he would do this by voting in favour of the Civil Union Bill??
RIGHT!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He’d do it by u-turning on civil unions and saying that gays aren’t mainstream NZers in the run up to an election…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He U-turned??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I should have said that mainstream New Zealand is really a state of mind, not a particular ethnic group or a group with a particular sexual orientation,” Brash said.
“I hold liberal views on sexual orientation and I certainly would not want to imply that gays were automatically not mainstream New Zealanders.”
Brash voted in favour of prostitution law reform and for the first reading of the Civil Union Bill.
He voted against its remaining stages, but only because he wanted a referendum on the subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, yes, Andrew, you’ve quoted his after-the-event spin. You haven’t quoted what he actually said on Morning Report.
His u-turn on Civil Unions, rather than being about the referendum red-herring, was so that he could say what he’s saying now – that the Government has spent too much time pandering to minority interests (the examples he gave were prostitution law reform, civil unions and Maori interests) rather than “mainstream concerns”. Which is an odd argument, given that the Government has spent next to no time on minority interests (prostitution law reform being a Private Mamber’s Bill, and civil unions being one amongst scores of Government Bills), but whatever…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brash’s problem is that he’s trying to go two ways at once.
He’s trying to push the “they’re freaking wierdo feminist communist social engineers” (I know I’m exaggerating for affect, but you get the point) barrow to both undermine Labour and try to steal back some of the socially conservative NZ First vote. There are some votes in that.
But he’s also aware that most of Labour’s initiatives (civil unions, prostitution law reform) actually _are_ mainstream these days. He knows that in 2005 social conservatives who find gays scary are no more the mainstream than the “moral majority” are a majority. What’s more, Brash generally has voted with Labour on these issues.
So: opportunist, not homophobe. But also I see why Frog tossed this in with the debate issue in his post, because in a debate Brash would need to be very deft indeed to have it both ways. He’ll do very well if he pulls it off: but he’s certainly got a challenge ahead of him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog –
First: I generally turn off Sean Plunkett’s “interviews” on Morning Report because his ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?” questions and constant spitting, snarling interjections aren’t only tiresome, they often degenerate into white noise. God, I even feel sorry for Jeanette and Rod when they have to endure this crap.
Second: If Clark is such a capable leader, I have to wonder why she won’t debate leaders of Opposition parties? I know this is going against CW, but I don’t think Clark is the slam-dunk debater you paint. She’s worse than Brash at getting rattled (and hostile) when knocked off her talking points, in front of an unfriendly audience or subjected to a tough, and persistent, line of unwelcome questioning. IMO (and please correct me if I’m wrong), Clark did the Greens a great service in 2002 when she got sceptic and personal in the later stages of the campaign. There’s a fine line between being ‘tough and capable’ and ‘arrogant and intolerant of contrary points of view’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)