RIP Roger Kerr

Having been offshore for over 8 years now I haven't had the pleasure of spending as much time with Roger as many of my friends have. It's a sign of his ability to articulate excellent ideas consistently without going into the gutter - that explains the huge outpouring of tributes to the man from across the political divide.

A massive loss to the political debate in New Zealand that I hope will be never forgotten. Another man gone too soon, too early, too young.

Cactus Kate sums it up beautifully.

Also good posts from Kiwiblog, Liberty Scott and Lindsay Mitchell

The best of Jeremy Kyle

In all seriousness, I am quite glad I am not at home watching this show :)

David Parker - Partner Stealing, Lie Spreading, Fraudster

Kiwiblog cleverly allowed Labour MP David Parker a chance to hang himself in public with a post about the electorate in Epsom. Unfortunately Farrar forgot to add the "humour" tag or add a disclaimer about the inaccuracies in the piece.

I expect lawsuits will follow, in fact I hope the Sensible Sentencing Trust does attempt to sue him for the lies in this article.

But I digress, lets look at the lie and then break it down.

Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

Complete lies.

Immediately ACT Party Secretary at the time Nick Kearney responded:

This is a lie. I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This lie is perpetuated by Labour consistently as if to say ACT sold that #5 slot of David Garrett to the SST. It is a barefaced lie

The MP in question, David Garrett then replied:

I confirm Nick’s statement that to the best of my knowledge niether SST nor McVicar has EVER given ANY political party a cent, Including ACT. The approach to have me stand for ACT came from Rodney Hide – not McVicar – after the latter said he would not stand for any political party, and Rodney asked if there was anyone else in the organization who knew his onions on law and order issues and could make a speech.

And then the SST replied as well:

I can confirm that from the other side – the Trust cannot and does not make large donations – it does not have that sort of money, and never has. The Trust can accept large donations however

David Parker has outright lied here.

We must remember what type of person David Parker is too. Forced to step down from his portfolios for filing fraudulent returns. He not once sued or attempted to sue Ian Wishart for his claims against him either.

This makes it clear that David Parker has some illegal secrets hidden under his bed.... but he isn't too shy to show off the fact that in his bed he has got the long time partner of iconic NZ musician Chris Knox, himself incapacitated after a stroke. He stole his partner of over 18 years from under his nose while he was lying in bed needing care and support from her.

Parker tried and failed to win the nomination at Dunedin North after a brutal and bloody battle with supporters and party HQ and ran up to Auckland to run in Epsom, a seat he can't possibly win - hence the need to tell lies about his opponents.

David Parker has leadership aspirations. But how can you trust somebody that you can't leave along in your own house in case he steals your money and your wife?

Gaddafi - the front pages of the papers today

When it comes to headlines - once again the British papers show they are world beaters.

First up is the Daily Mail


Then the Independent:


and finally the Sun really puts the boot in, but does capture the anger of so many. Who would have thought Gaddafi would die before Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, the alleged mastermind behind the Lockerbie tragedy?


The Guardian also was nice enough to allow embedded videos of their footage of the capture:

Who would of known what he would have said if he went to court. It seems he didn't have any chance of surviving his capture and I wonder what sort of Government we will have in Libya now? Time will tell but it is encouraging that many of the most brutal men in our time are being bought to justice lately. Hopefully Mugabe is next!

The 2011 Prime Moneywaster what a difference 5 years makes!

Do you remember this advert by National in 2005? Very effective then and quite appropriate today as well.



It didn't allow embedding so you can watch it again here.

The advert was very specific on how much more taxpayers were paying for under a Labour Govt: Higher petrol levies, taxes on "bevies" , Speed Camera fines and higher taxes... and yet we have today, courtesy of the National Govt:

- Petrol levies = Up including that awful ETS.
- Tax on bevies = exise increases as well as the GST increase at least. Not to mention big tobacco exise tax hikes
- Speed camera/patrols revenue gathering = "Speed camera tickets nearly double"

- Higher taxation = Yes with GST.

National isn't proposing wholesale changes to any of Labours policies either. Interest will remain off student loans, Working for Families isn't under threat and they are not going to sell that giant millstone around our necks - NZ Rail.

They cast concerns at the ACT Party changing their lineup at the election and yet we have the National Party doing a U turn on all their policies and principles in 5 years. It's going to be a long 3 more years after this election if we don't see some spine coming from John Key and his party.

Bloody Gadhafi!

Gadhafi died from his wounds, his condition is described as "satisfactory"

Anti Capitalist Protest Fail

Oh dear



(stolen from Twitter)

Isaac is back!

Older readers, if I have any remaining, will remember the programme the Love Boat. Oh it was a happy place to be – led by a smiling captain with a few silly characters muddling about in semi comedic or dramatic situations getting from one destination to another. One thing that kept them all together was the calming influence of Isaac the level headed barman – whose quips and banter were all served up with generous servings of liquor and commonsense.

I draw comparisons to the ACT Party, a party I have sailed with since 1996. They have also had its good and bad characters on board all sailing through good and not so good situations. Thankfully the party yesterday finally announced that the level headed person who will pull it all together is another Isaac, Catherine Isaac that is – who will bring commonsense and credibility at a time when the triennial media vultures start circling starboard, not to mention the leftie and Nat bloggers who predict the demise of the party.

I remember Catherine when she was running to be party President. I remember in my capacity as Prebble’s Rebels president,(later known as ACT on Campus) being pressured quite heavily to not vote for her or show support for her “side” in favour of voting for John Ormond as ACT President. As I was Dunedin based and had been far away from the internal quibbles – I was exposed for the first time the factional politics from within the party. Either way, I had no problem with either Presidential candidate and I don’t actually recall who I voted for, if I did.

Catherine did win and she created the “Liberal Project” for ACT. Like Cactus Kate said on her blog – I wasn’t too enamoured by it whatsoever. But that was because I am not excited by long fireside chats about philosophy, which is as sexy as Catherine Delahunty and as vote friendly as being a fox hunter at a PETA rally. Nevertheless, my objectives at university were to pass my papers and get laid as often as I could – being an ideologue didn’t feature anywhere near this list. And today, unfortunately, liberalism is a dirty word to many within the ACT Party especially to the Epsom candidate.

Catherine however has a glittering business background that simply puts her peers on other party lists to shame. She knows what she is talking about, just as much as Dr Don knows a thing or two about the economy and Don from Fed Farmers knows about farmers. She is a wise head that will hopefully prevent the media from making up coup attempts and disaster headlines leading up to the election. You’d think that anyway!

Sure it was a badly kept secret, but Catherine is an excellent candidate for the party and has the experience to be an asset to Parliament. I wish her well in the campaign. I am sure that over the campaign we'll hear much whining from failed Radio New Zealand guest blog reader, Martyn Bradbury cry a lot about this candidate, like he did when Cactus was going to run - but as most of New Zealand knows already, anything Martyn thinks is a bad idea must be a damn good idea!

Bring on the campaign!

The Race for the Presidency: Republican Nominees - Blair Mulholland

I've been meaning to write about the Republican nomination for US President for quite some time. However, the field, and the game, has been changing on an almost daily basis, such that any commentary prior may have been a word spoken too soon. The biggest issue was whether Palin and/or Christie would get in. Since they have now declared that they are out, I feel a bit freer to assess things.

Firstly let me say how disappointed/pissed off I am that Palin is not running. She would have been by far the best candidate. She was solid on all the issues, has a relatively stable personal life, is a great debater and public speaker, has executive experience, and is easily the most charismatic figure in American politics since Bill Clinton. None of the current declared candidates share all those qualities, and when you want to win the game against hard opposition, you send in your best batsman. Whatever anybody says, and whatever her polling negatives, that was Palin. But, like a typical woman, she teased and flashed us for months on end, promising so much, only to spurn us at the last minute and leave us with our hard-ons in our hands. I think it was the wrong decision for her. She has now proven everything that her detractors have said about her - that she is a quitter, that she is lazy, that she is a narcissist, that she is only in it for the money and the celebrity. She has lost a great deal of respect, and not just from me. She didn't even have to run to win. Reagan only got there on his third try. Even a losing run would not have diminished her if, like Huckabee last time around, she ran a decent campaign with no fuckups - she is only 47 and would be well primed for another go in 2016 or 2020. I hope she does eventually have a go. What she should be aiming for now is the Secretary of Energy position in any future Republican administration, or to replace McCain in the Senate in Arizona - that's the only way she is going to remain relevant that far down the track.

Anyhoo, to the people who would be President, in order of worst to best:


1) Former Pennsylvania Sentator Rick Santorum

Santorum makes me want to vomit. He is a nerdy, geeky little twerp who has done nothing but work in politics his entire life. He spends his debating time trying to "out-conservative" all the other candidates and thinks that the way to the nomination lies in being as hardcore on abortion and gay marriage as is humanly possible, when all most people care about is jobs and whether they can make rent next month. It's embarrassing. And he lost his Senate seat so badly in 2006 that it is amazing anybody takes him seriously. When Palin labeled him a "knuckle-dragging neanderthal", she was spot-on, which makes his recent desperate pleas for her to endorse him even more pathetic.

How apt also that "Santorum" is now urban slang for the mix of lube, semen and faeces that results from anal sex. Well deserved.

I would vote for Obama over Santorum (can there be a worse insult?). Just piss off and die, Rick. I think he may do the former at least very soon.


2) Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann

I never understood why Bachmann got so much initial publicity, and the comparisons with Palin were even more bizarre, since there's nothing much in common there other than they both have a vagina. Yes, she debates well. Yes, she is a solid conservative who is on the right side of all the issues. Also, she's purrty. But... well... she's never done anything. She's never run anything other than a household. She has no real legislative accomplishments other than rescinding the ban on incandescent lightbulbs, which, while laudable, doesn't make her Presidential material. Also, what with her fostering 23 children and all, she's clearly a compassionate person, but why can't she get that to come across? She sounds like a fembot when she talks about policy. When she talked about abortion in one debate I was reminded of Mike Dukakis's staunch answer to a question on the death penalty in 1988. There was no compassion or feeling there - only the doctrinaire line. It's odd for somebody who was a Democrat in the '70s and campaigned for Jimmy Carter. And her fundamentalism on gay marriage, and her insistence on making it an issue, is a huge turnoff.

I'd probably vote for Bachmann over Obama, but I wouldn't expect her to be any more competent. There is a massive difference between Opposition and Government, and Bachmann won't make the crossing.


3) Former Utah Governor and US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman

Jon Huntsman made the great mistake of being the "establishment moderate Republican" candidate in an electoral cycle where that position is absolute poison to any GOP voter with half a brain. Any other year he would be a top three contender. Not this time. Which is a shame, because, like Howard Dean in 2003, he's actually not that bad.

He was a reasonable Governor of Utah - the most solidly Republican state in the Union. He's also the only candidate with any decent foreign policy credentials - he's been Ambassador to China - and foreign policy is the GOP Achilles Heel right now. But you get the feeling he's not running because his heart's in it and he has fire in his belly. You get the impression he's running because the Bush family and the East Coast GOP asked him to. And once you have Rush Limbaugh asking "hey Jon, who are your friends?", it's all over. He is now labeled the "establishment" candidate when the Tea Party wants anything but. To compound things, he campaigns according to his masters' bidding, and like he is trying to get Democrats to vote for him. His campaign spokesman insulted the the other candidates as being "anti-science" and he came out saying he believes in anthropogenic global warming, when most GOP voters are GOP voters precisely because they know AGW is bollocks. FAIL.

OTOH, his economic policy release was excellent, and was all but cribbed by Herman Cain later on. I don't know who Huntsman's campaign manager is, but they are a dumbarse. Oh well. US political campaigns weed out weaklings like no other system on earth, and Huntsman is a weakling. I wouldn't be unhappy if he took the VP slot on anybody else's ticket, but he's not the guy, and shows no signs of troubling the field despite his official support.


4) Texas Representative Ron Paul

I like Ron Paul, but even if I had a casting vote in the Electoral College, I wouldn't make him President.

The reason was summed up in a blog comment I recently saw: "Ron Paul is spot-on 90% of the time, and dead-wrong the other 10%. Unfortunately, the 10% is what's going to get us all killed." It's true. I applaud Ron Paul for being the sole true libertarian voice in Congress, and if he were President, surely we would get sweeping domestic reform like no other candidate would give us. But Paul's problem is that his foreign policy is just awful. He has this naive view that if America just ignored the rest of the world, then the rest of the world would ignore America. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If 9/11 proved anything, it's that no matter how much I care, people are still arseholes. And unless America engages militarily with those who would destroy freedom around the world, you are going to get to the point where there are too many wolves at your door. There is no wisdom in saying, oh, there are only a few wolves, and we can ignore them. If you don't shoot the bastards, they breed, and before you know it there are too many of them and they are causing you a world of shit. Ron Paul, unlike most GOP voters, does not understand this. So whatever wonderful libertarian ideas he has, unless you have a big freaking army all around the world to defend them, they count for nothing.

What is interesting about Paul, however, is his level of support now versus 2008. He is averaging about 12% now, unthinkable four years ago. Back then his ideas were extreme, now many of them are core Tea Party values. He is having an effect, and for that reason alone his run is valuable. No, he should not be President. No, he will not be President. But we should all thank God, or Gault, or whatever, for Ron Paul.


5) Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson

Johnson really has been shut down. He's basically a young Ron Paul, with executive experience, and slightly more sane. I can't for the life of me understand why the media have refused to give him oxygen. It's almost like a conspiracy, especially when you consider the airtime given to Huntsman, who was also Governor of a medium-sized Western state.

He's been pigeonholed as "the drug guy", which hasn't helped him. I think also that when you run for President, you either need to be Sarah Palin ie. too big to give a fuck what the Party thinks, or a brown-noser with your compatriots on a nationwide basis. This is easy if you are in Congress - a Governor has a harder job. You have to make a name for yourself, or you have to network. Johnson has done neither, and that has been his downfall. Nobody knows who he is, and nobody cares. He is getting a libertarian rump of support, and that's it. I don't really see how he can get in the game. Which is a shame, because he is probably closer to my own views on policy than any other declared candidate.


6) Texas Governor Rick Perry

With hindsight, Rick Perry was always going to have problems. He has been in politics his whole life, had very easy elections facing rather inept opponents throughout, and been stuck in a job with almost no power other than to veto whatever the Texas Legislature bothers to come up with in its short three month sessions every two years. In political terms this has made him fat and lazy. Yes, W was also Governor of Texas, but at least he had a Democratic legislature and had to provide some actual leadership. Perry has never had to worry about that.

In politics, you identify your Achilles Heel straight away, and you knock that weasel on the head. With Palin it was quitting her Governorship. With Romney it's his healthcare plan. Perry failed to identify just how pissed off America was with illegal immigration, and that whatever he needed to do to court the considerable number of Hispanic voters in Texas was just not going to fly in Iowa or South Carolina. He made the fatal mistake of doubling down and defending his decision to fund children of illegals into college, and voters who had previously thought he was their conservative saviour turned off in droves. The political commentariat have all been saying that Perry can come back, but there is no coming back on such a basic Tea Party/conservative staple like immigration. Voters don't forget something that major.

As Perry said himself, he came in late and suddenly became the pinata which everyone took to with big sticks. Bachmann roasted him on his compulsory vaccines for teenage girls, and that hurt him. Voters have detected an inconsistency in his positions, and there is some part of us which can never forgive a man who supported Al Gore once, even if it was back in the '80s.

He wouldn't be a bad nominee, and I think he could win. But he has campaigned badly so far, and his lackadaisical attitude to politics may have got him by in the past, but it won't now. For Perry to be the nominee, he would have to run a kickarse campaign from now on, and Romney and Cain would have to start doing very badly. I think the odds on that are low.


7) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Despite whatever you read about how different the two are - there really is not much wiggle room between Rick Romney and Mitt Perry. They're both basically slick, smooth-talking politicians with good hair. The only real difference is the states they ran. Romney's is the second most Democratic in the nation after Vermont. And they have both run their states according to what they thought their voters wanted. Now they are both paying for it.

Romney's big problem is his healthcare initiatives in Massachusetts. There are two reasons that this millstone around his neck has not sunk him yet. One is that people realise that Massachusetts is a terrible place filled with horrible communists like Barney Frank. They can forgive a GOP man for doing what he needed to do to keep his job. It's a lot harder to forgive Perry for prevaricating in a hardcore GOP place like Texas. The other is that Romney's voters are not Tea Party. He has cornered the moderate GOP vote - around 20%, the silent minority who don't like socialism, but who like their medicare and their social security and don't think we need to go nuts the other way either. This may be enough to make him the nominee. And there is a widespread consensus that, while Romney is not an ideal nominee, he would be "okay". He is a bit of a weasel, but people think he would be a conservative enough President to be adequate for the job.

There are bad portents to making him the nominee however. No President has ever been elected without winning his home state. If Romney won Michigan, which is possible, he could make that claim, but he is certainly never going to carry the state which gave us John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Mike Dukakis. I think he can beat Obama, possibly. But his lack of charisma is going to make that hard against "The One". I certainly can't see him besting Obama in a debate. He would be a troubling nominee and right now I'd find it hard to come up with a strategy to get him to the finish.

That said, if I was a betting man (or I had any money to bet with), I'd put a crisp Benjamin (or Rutherford) on Romney. Nobody really wants him to be the nominee, but, y'know, oh well, he'd be alright, I suppose...


8) Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich

I really thought Newt would be a playa, playas. I really did. He had the easiest, simplest sales pitch of any of the prospective nominees and the time was right. All he had to do was say "I balanced the budget when I was Speaker, and I can do it again". But he then proceeded to have the worst first week of a campaign I have ever seen, and has yet to properly recover since. He smacked down Paul Ryan's alternative budget right at the time when the Tea Party were swooning over both him and it, and that was it right there. EPIC FAIL. Also, so many Tea Party people have never forgiven Newt for his tentative endorsement of AGW theories, and for appearing in a TV commercial with... *gasp* Nancy Pelosi! The Paul Ryan faux pas just confirmed their suspicions, and the phone calls have not been returned ever since.

However, Gingrich has learned from that, been solid since then, and has slowly moved up. He now hovers in the high single figures, which is better than Bachmann, it has to be said. Will he move up further? Anything is possible. He is easily the smartest and sharpest mind in the race - he has leadership qualities, charisma and a daring that is sorely lacking in politics today, though maybe too much. The unmentioned problem is his moral character. He has cheated on two marriages to get to his current wife. To date, Ronald Reagan has been the only divorced President. GOP voters get queasy about such things. Rightly or wrongly, he is also seen as a figure of the past by many conservatives and Tea Partiers, and unsuited to modern requirements.

Personally I am not sure Gingrich has the right temperament to be President, but he would be a great VP. There is a slim chance he could yet come through - he certainly has the credentials and track record. But I wouldn't bet on it.


9) Talkback Radio Host and Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain

I was delighted to see Herman Cain race to the top of recent polls following Perry's implosion. He really is a top quality candidate. Yes, if he was white and a talkback host and former CEO with no political experience, we'd probably be talking about him in the same breath as Gary Johnson. But that's not an issue, because Cain has risen to the occasion, and deserves his frontrunner status. He is a highly charismatic, likeable figure who debates well and speaks well. He is working this race like he was born to do it. And while it's easy to do if you have no record, he ticks all the conservative Tea Party boxes on policy. His 9/9/9 economic policy sounds like something ACT should be pushing in New Zealand.

Personally I had always thought Cain was the best of a rather mediocre bunch, but always thought he should have run for Governor of Georgia first. Well now he's bad and he's nationwide. He is taking the place that Palin may have in an alternate universe, and now that she is out for sure, he will consolidate. Unfortunately, he is likely to draw even more of the same vitriol that Palin did, and one only has to look at Clarence Thomas to see the sort of high tech lynching that racist Democrats engage in once one of "their" Negroes heads off the plantation. But no matter - Mr Cain has immaculate composure, and dealt swiftly to a racist interviewer on MSNBC recently. The lynching will not work.

Cain's campaign has sent the commentariat into a tailspin. Their shock has turned to assertions that Cain is a flash in the pan and that once Perry revitalises his campaign, Cain will recede. They see Cain as a substitute. One even suggested the Cain support was a "protest vote". Such commentary insults the intelligence of voters. If Cain's vote recedes, it will be because Cain messes up, and for no other reason. Perry is not coming back in a hurry, for reasons I have already detailed. Cain's frontrunner status is here to stay, - he has been adjudged by voters as the best not-Romney, and he may yet even get the nomination. Can you imagine how many heads will explode?!

I hope Cain wins. If he does, he will wipe the floor with Obama. Yes, his lack of political experience is a huge drawback, and makes him a risky nominee - indeed, a risky President. But one just has to look at seasoned politicians like Perry to know that experience does not always translate into sound campaigning, and Cain has made very few missteps so far. As for whether he is fit for the Presidency, well, I think our second black President would be a vast improvement on our first. He knows how to run a company and turn it around, which is something, although nothing like running a government to be sure. However, any gaps in foreign policy and political savvy he possesses can be well covered by a good VP nominee. Condi Rice would be ideal, surely? An all Afro ticket: Can you imagine the horror of the Left? I want to see it happen for that reason alone!

So that's the field. I like Johnson, will settle for Romney, but hope Cain wins, and hope Gingrich gets his mojo back. Whoever wins, Obama is going to have the fight of his life on his hands.