Foot in mouth disease
Britain’s Guardian had it about right when it said in an editorial on Saturday:
It comes as a surprise to learn that some there still think women are unsuited to the rough and tumble of political life. And it is even more of a surprise that this idea should come from the leader of New Zealand’s main opposition party in the run-up to next month’s general election.
Don Brash, the aptly named leader of the centre-right National party, faced Ms Clark in a televised debate last week, and came off second best. When asked why he had done so badly, Mr Brash suggested he had deliberately gone easy on Ms Clark. “I think it’s not entirely appropriate for a man to aggressively attack a woman and I restrained myself for that reason,” Mr Brash explained. “Had the other combatant been a man, my style might have been rather different.” Ms Clark herself offered a more plausible alternative explanation: “Sounds like an excuse for losing to me.”
Unhappily for Mr Brash, opinion polls show that a majority of voters regard Ms Clark as a stronger leader than him by a margin of two to one. But if we assume Mr Brash wasn’t merely trying to distract the electorate from his poor performance with a sexist remark, losing the election will surely come as a relief to him. Imagine the embarrassing situations being prime minster would involve. How could he, for example, argue forcefully with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice? Or stare down Chinese vice-premier Wu Yi? Would he have to graciously give way to any demands made by Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine’s prime minister?
August 29th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Hm-m-m, from British papers? Interesting, and timely. Well said. Joy.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Definately agree, Brash would have no show against Condoleezza Rice. Nor would he stand a chance against Gerry Brownlee
Amazing that this stuff is getting into the Guardian!
August 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
There’s probably more Kiwi’s in GB than there are in Wellington.
respectfully
BJ
August 29th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Exquire:
I wouldn’t put odds on Clark steamrolling Rice either - she seems to have developed a talent for quietly, but firmly, slapping down some real alpha dogs.
Oh, and was there a reason you omitted the last par. Frog, apart from the fact it’s totally inaccurate?
August 29th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
like what yous say fwwog in essemnce is that we need like katherine rich to lead the right and mebe like just a little rodney, like haf way between the mummy and th sister thing fwwog, like yous jokes do,
August 29th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
ACT party people sacked forthwith are,
1. roger douglas, banned from right politic for life
2. richard prebble, banned from all politic for life
3. catherine judd, banned from all public position for life
4. John Buscowen banned from money
5. Brian NICOLLE banned from New Zealand
medals of dishonour to Judd,
August 29th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
The thing is Comrade Frog, you are not understanding the difference between Brash not wanting to win a shouting match with an overbearing, loudmouthed, disprespectful, “the governments role is whatever I say it is” Miss Helen Clark, and the power of politiely saying “No, I don’t agree to those terms” (and meaning it) to whatever character of world politics you care to front up with.
An argument full of wind but no substance, I’m afraid.
You’ll also notice none of the other characters are likely to scream and shout at Brash in a vain attempt to win a TV debate.
Stern old Helen has still rolled over to the *slightly* undemocratic China, coughed up several million dollars to Vietnam, completely hid from the Zimbabwe affair sending out her minions to posture ineffectively, not stuck up for her racer boy drivers, and failed to give the UN a swift kick in the pants for the various scandals we keep discovering.