Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Vinick gave Santos the briefcase I think (not sure TV ever showed that...and after the 3rd or 4th episode in a row on a DVD box set my memory fades).
I remember that episode, it was a goody.
I was once, marginally, in much the same situation described in the hypothetical situation. I was a researcher for Mallard when he was provided with Tuku's diary at the height of the the defamation suit over Tuku's undies and generalised corruption... my role involved taking it to the SFO on Trevor's instructions. Which was precisely the right thing to do.
-
Sacha, I read Armstrong's piece also and thought it was pretty fair. I think his career is over and it was always going to be a train-wreck. The collateral damage is likely to be significant.
-
Paul I'll never read the phrase Large Hadron the same way again, thanks to Craig.
It is a big erection but...
I have a secret plan to get PA blocked in Australia. Craig doesn't know he's a Cylon yet.
Emma, don't you dare!
I'm interested to know what it would take to shake the unbending faith that the author and a large number of the readers of this blog have in Helen Clark?
Rik, I've not got blind-faith in any leader, including Clark. However, this issue is principally about Peters not Clark and let's not forget the deals Brash/English and Key did with the Exclusive Brethren or the deals Bolger did with Peters, the one's Shipley had with anyone and everyone... National are hardly clean-skins.
But in answer to your question, where it not based on a false-premise, shaking my faith in a Labour-led government would first require the Opposition to publish a coherent and meaningful set of alternative policies... what do you look for?
-
To the extent that your points relate to anything I've said, consider the following:
The credibility of Palin is a very partisan issue.
It might have partisan protagonists but I don't see how, by any measure, she's anything close to being credible - particularly if those measures include qualifications or experience.
Accept insofar as she's reflective of a significant group within the electorate, she's patently not credible. But if you think popularity is sufficient, just say so plainly rather than claiming popularity denotes capability.
1. People who identify with her will feel an implication they themselves lack credibility in your eyes.
Well, perhaps you're right but let me be clear about which "group" that is. It's not the life members of the NRA, or the people who're pro-choice or even those who're evangelical Christians; I'd probably not vote for people who fit this description, but I'd not argue they're necessarily inexperienced.
It's none of these matters that render her unsuitable in my mind. It's the fact that she's got no foreign policy experience, minimal experience governing a tiny town/state and that she appears to have misused her powers to settle personal scores.
2. The credibilty of her experience is a dangerous issue as she is not the one running for president. Raise enough awareness of experience issues and you are effectively campaigning for McCain.
This may also be true. But to date, McCain's experience suggests he'd make most of the same errors Bush did whereas Obama appears to be approaching matters in a more realistic and less confrontational way. If only in foreign policy, McCain's approach seems certain to extend current hostilities into Iran whereas Obama's is much less likely too. Of course this is crystal ball gazing but I was impressed by this analysis of Obama's comment that he'd meet Ahmadinejad by Fred Kaplan and particularly by this passage:
The remark did violate an article in the playbook of Cold War diplomacy: that a presidential visit is special, something that the recipient of the visit values above all else and therefore needs to earn; that success must be virtually guaranteed before such a high-stakes trip is taken; and that, therefore, before such a hallowed event can be scheduled, the grunts need to complete all the "spade work," leaving little for the presidents to do beyond signing on the dotted line.
But here's a fact of our times (and Obama seems to have a grip on this, perhaps because he's not so immersed in the diplomatic subculture): A presidential visit is not the cherished commodity that it once was, because the United States is no longer the superpower that it used to be.
(emphasis added). Yes, I do realise that Kaplan's analysis talks-up the advantages of not being an establishment candidate, but again there's a difference between being outside the orthodoxy and being stupid and ignorant.
Finally you say that:
Anything that deflects attention away from the economy, health care and society assists the Republicans. Unless you are absolutely positive that Barack Obama will win a contest with John McCain on the basis of credibity and experience STFU about Palin's lack of experience.
Again, I don't disagree and this appears to be what the Obama/Biden camp are now doing but do you really think that the US electorate wonder about McCain's longevity and therefore pay close attention to the VP?
-
Sacha: I am not saying this Peter's business isn't a story but, well, it isn't a very big story.
I don't agree Tom. It mightn't compare with the Large Hadron Collider in terms of enduring significance or even with the risk that a McCain/Palin administration could overturn Roe v Wade, but given that the NZ electorate will soon go to the polls, the duplicitous (and potentially illegal) behaviour of the Foreign Minister is important.
-
Given how incredibly tight the numbers in the house were for the last three years, Winston winning his seat through the courts would have been a massive coup for the Labour government.
This might be true but - and this was Russell's initial point as I understood it - the sequencing of events suggests it's highly unlikely. As Labour already had an agreement with NZF giving them a workable majority, they'd no need to assist him further. For your alternative explanation to make sense, wouldn't Labour needed an additional benefit (particularly since in '96 Peters reneged on his public statements about Labour)?
A more likely scenario, IMO, is that Peters leveraged his position to access Glenn's generosity. We've all been in this sort of situation, when an embarrassing friend takes advantage our better connections; most people learn how inappropriate this is during primary school however.
-
Excuse me, I conflated my view that Palin asks uncomfortable questions for feminists by using a nationwide survey that shows Palin (who has non-progressive views on a wide range of subjects) polls well amoung a group that the feminist movement claims to be supporting. I do apologise that might be incorrect.
How do you figure this? She's popular amongst a group of women, I get that from the story, but how do you manage the next bit of logic? Who claims? I guess if you assume all feminists have essentially the same, presumably narrow, set of views you can make that pretty crude syllogism but it's very shaky. Perhaps you could test it by checking any of the many feminist groups and commentator that don't agree. Perhaps start with this piece by Dahlia Lithwick.
Well apart from having experience similar to Obama,
Look Angus, this has been thoroughly canvassed by others. I understand that there's questions about Obama's experience, he's not as experienced as recent Presidential candidates... accept more so that George W and has experience comparable with Clinton (according to Clinton but what he'd know hey). Is he more experienced that Palin? In my opinion, yes. And there's lots and lots of reasons for this which I think are fair and reasonable and you don't... but this;
has governed a state with 15,000 employees and has shown judgement enough to run a victorious election campaign against the wishes of the old guard Alaskan GOP
is just ridiculous... you must have thought Cheney grossly over-qualified then? Christ Quayle too.
Angus, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe what you're saying, but even so, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
-
A propos of nothing, does anyone else remember those "I've been Thinking" books Richard Prebble used to publish? For some reason the came out just before a general election.
Oh yes I certainly do; they turned up uninvited in the letter boxes of every Wellington resident lawyer, accountant or auditor (plus I'm sure other "professionals" too) in 1996 (or 99?) with an offer to remit payment... I carefully filed mine.
-
Actually Paul I think you'll find that popularity is the defining characteristic of a candidate's credibility.
I've lived in Australia for six years, five of which were under a Howard government; I hardly ever met anyone who said they voted for Howard 'cause they liked him. And, despite my affection for Helen, I suspect she won the last election not solely because of her popularity.
I'd not conflate your views with those of the electorate (and if you're going for glib, you're really going to have to do better than this.)
-
I'm going to let all the hysteria pass by and hope for something sensible to emerge; am I dreaming?