What does "mislead" mean, Mr Magoo?

Just one more thought. In this Stuff piece from NZPA:

But Labour threw a barb back following a report in the Manuwatu Standard in which Dr Brash was quoted as saying his integrity was always a legitimate issue.

"I have never, to my knowledge, misled the New Zealand public," Dr  Brash said.

This niggled because I thought I could remember him admitting doing just that. Google proved my memory is correct. In the NZ Herald on 10 September 2005, a week before the Election, Don Brash said:

National leader Don Brash yesterday apologised to the public, and to his deputy, Gerry Brownlee, for misleading statements about pamphlets produced by the Exclusive Brethren. The same day, the sect began distributing two more.

...

"I certainly have to apologise for misleading the public," Dr Brash said yesterday.

This kind of thing makes me angry. You can't have it both ways. If you have admitted misleading the public, you can't come out just a year later and deny doing so.

The moral authority of Mr Magoo is slipping away.

 

Comments

[sagenz]

you are not angry that helen has corruptly stolen money from the taxpayer to fund her re-election campaign but you are angry that Dr Brash says he has not mislead the nz public. do you think that you on the left could realise the damage you have done with personal attacks and back off for a few days. why not play the policy rather than the man. Dr Brash has attempted to move the argument back to policy, but you seem intent on bringing it back to personality. FFS jordan get a grip or prove that you are incapable of addressing genuine issues rather than being a party attack puppet. You know full well that Dr Brash has never knowingly tried to mislead the public. He admitted before the election that he had created a misleading impression and corrected it. It cost him the election. Is the politics really so important?

[Aj]

Alzheimer's.

[Matt Price]

Maybe its just because I am a lawyer (and therefore by definition a National Party stooge, along the the accountants, businesspeople and golfers), but I tend to take phrases in their context. If Don when asked if he has any credibility says "I have never misled the NZ public", he clearly means IN THIS RESPECT.

Secondly, as you very well know, Don was ambushed by the media when he gave your ONE example - about the Exclusive Brethren. Call it slow response, or bad media handling, but its hardly his moral authority wearing away, and its hardly alzheimers.

Calling him names like Mr Magoo and questioning his moral authority is a distraction. We all know that Helen is the female incarnation of Richard Nixon. I never would have voted for her party, but I used to hold grudging respect and trust of her. Now I have only contept. Pay back the stolen money.

[Mark]

One example from National and you get angry, but multiple examples from Labour and it's Labour MPs and you say nothing.

Thta's typical from you Jordan you Labour party lackey - if Labour gave you a piece of shit to eat and told you it was chocolate you would swallow it whole.

[George Darroch]

Off topic, but did anyone else notice that DPF turned his comments off after realising that Don had only asked one written question this term? Hilarious!

[Jordan]

Sigh, the tired old saws come back to play. The lies that are being continually told by the right about Labour's perfectly appropriate use of parl service money are really getting tired. One might quote Otago and say 'get over it,' but you're not capable of that, or so it would seem.

[Craig Ranapia]

Jordan:

Grow up - and I certainly look forward to your comment on Helen Clark (notice that know her surname doesn't begin with a K) and her remarkable impersonation of Ian Wishart on Monday. I'm quite happy to have a discussion about what kind of 'moral authority' was on display there, and I can do it while leaving the childish name-calling to Trevor Mallard.

[Idiot/Savant]

More importantly, Brash believes in a "moral obligation to lie". How can a man who believes that claim to have any shred of integrity or credibility?

[Craig Ranapia]

BTW, George Darroch, the comments on Kiwiblog went down because of a technical glitch and are working fine. What's not hilarious is when you present your fantasy life as fact.

[Insolent Prick]

Tony/Jordan:

Nice to know you are still living in fantasy land.

How can National be deliberately attempting to mislead the public over Labour's use of parliamentary services funding for $800k+ of election expenditure, when it is only repeating the advice of the Auditor-General?

I realise that Labour has stooped to the degree that it is now personally attacking the judgement and neutrality of the Auditor-General, but you're drawing a very long bow to claim that National is lying over it.

[Craig Ranapia]

IP:

Well, I know Jordan is way too young to remember, but back in the day a certain Robert David Muldoon used to take political criticism very personally as well. Even Barry Gustafson's generally sympathetic biography cannot disguse that as the political pressure increased between the Springbok Tour and the '84 snap election the more vindictive side of his personality became more and more visible. And, fairly or not, that's what people remember instead of his considerable personal and political virtues. Whatever I think of Helen Clark and the Labour Party, it would be sad to see them go down the same toilet.

[Gooner]

I/S, Chris Trotter believes in a moral authority to commit 'fraud' too (if indeed that is what the A-G decides has taken place, I don't believe that) if the purpose of the fraud is too keep the 'evil' right out of government. Now, I accept Trotter is not Brash but same diff. aye?

[MarcusD]

Jordan - so what is worse: a person potentially misleading the country (which I don't believe he did) or a person having a prima facie fraud case agaist them. I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out but clearly you aren't one are you.

Pay it back - it is the only honest thing to do.

[Paul]

Marcus,

and all parties pay back the money over the last several elections. Wait for the final auditors report.

Rather tax payers money that freaking women hating religious wacko undemocratic cult slush fund.
Are you really comfortable taking money from thos F*^K heads? And apart from most other coloquial abuses I can think of, there is no way to describe those sicko's.

Still if you want you party boosted by 1.2 million of religious extreemism, then fine, I would be very uncomfortable with that.

[Paul]

BTW,

Cullen has just hinted at corporate tax cuts. Now I am uncomfortable with that, but really what is national going to campaign on next time. Keep Brash and with lower taxes for business, Labour for 08, he he he.

[Insolent Prick]

Paul,

The Auditor-General specified concerns before the last election, and clarified the issues with parties then. It is absolutely clear that his parliamentary services spending concerns relate only to the 2005 election period--the three months prior to the election.

If you can't see the difference between a lawful interest group spending their own money lawfully on issues that are of concern to them in an election period, and a governing party unlawfully spending taxpayers' money, then you're fucking nuts.

[Paul]

IP this just in NZ Herald.

"Auditor-General Kevin Brady has accepted that the Green Party's spending of $20,000 on the election campaign was legitimate, it was reported today.

Mr Brady originally ruled that the $20,000 spent on the Green Times newsletter was out of order.

It is the second time that Mr Brady has backtracked after he cut $46,000 from the $63,000 he had originally said the Act party had misspent."

wait for the final report tosser.

EB may be lawful, but they are an imoral bunch of misogynistic f*#K heads who deserve to be put on an island somewhere to rot, rescuing the women and children of course.

[Paul]

But if you are happy with wacko cults influencing your party so much then fine.

Because there would have to be some sort of pay off to them for their million if National got in... now what could that be I wonder?

[MarcusD]

Paul, more than happy to wait for the final report but the message will be the same for any political party that is found to have broken the rules that changed after the 2002 election. And that is the fundamental point you miss on this - the rules did change. Still, I can't see how any politcal party (and not just Labour here) could be taken seriously if they attempt to introduce retrospective legislation to validate any overspend that was ruled illegal or if they simply refuse to pay it back. Try running the not pay it back argument with the IRD.

Personally I am apalled at your comments about the EB. I don't subscribe to any religion but do you feel the same way about all extreme religious groups in the same mould (i.e. "freaking women hating religious wacko undemocratic" - which could cover a lot of religions) or just the ones that exercise their democratic rights?

[Insolent Prick]

Paul, let's break down the sequence of events for you.

The Green Party discussed the initial report with the Auditor-General, agreed on an amended report, and agreeing to repay its liability.

The Labour Party says that even if the Auditor-General's final report says that they have a liability, they will not pay it back, and that it is Treasury's fault that they will have to change the law to make their illegal spending lawful.

If you are so concerned about the Exclusive Brethren, I suggest you petition your MP to outlaw them. While you're at it, you might as well include Jews, Muslims, members of the Business Roundtable, and anybody else who disagrees with your view of socialism. I would note the irony that you seem far more concerned about the legal activities of a quaint group of people who don't break the law, than you are with the activities and treatment of actual law-breakers in the Labour Party.

[GB]

AJ wrote ...
" ...but I tend to take phrases in their context. If Don when asked if he has any credibility says "I have never misled the NZ public", he clearly means IN THIS RESPECT."

My brain just imploded after reading that. The 'context' clause, gotta love it.

I guess then, that you have no problem with Labour spending $800, 000 of taxpayers money (sic) , because 'in context' this was acceptable practice IN THIS RESPECT.

Still, you've got the workings of a terrific election campaign slogan for Don next time-

"Vote for Don, he's somewhat un-dishonest in certain contexts"

[Idiot/Savant]

Gooner: I think I've been clear enough in voicing my disapproval of Trotter; the Pinochet Argument has no place in a democracy. And neither does Brash's "moral obligation to lie".

[Aj]

GB I share your sentiments - you have attributed that nonsense to the wrong individual.

[SPC]

There has long been an intolerance for hypocrisy in politics.

EB requires it's members not to vote or participate in politics. Yet they spend more per member than any other group (religious or political).

The one reason is rich members want tax cuts, but supporting National meant breaching their CAP. So they campaigned against Green and Labour policy instead.

[Paul]

IP

to describe the EB as quaint is to describe Brash as a serial monogamist. Read any of the accounts of the people that have mangaed to escape their evil and vindictive activities and then call them quaint. They are extreemist wacko's whom need to be marganilised not welcomed into the upper echelons of poltical life.

Of course you believe that socialist wish to outlaw anyone that doens't think like us, au contraire, but if you believe that to make yourself feel good, go a head young man, what ever makes you feel good.

[Insolent Prick]

Paul,

If you've got evidence of criminal behaviour by the EBs, make a complaint to the Police. Last I heard, it's not illegal to be part of a strange sect. Your constant ranting and raving about them gives them far more credit than they deserve. You don't want to join them? Fine. Nobody's forcing you to. Concerned that others have joined them? Well, they do so with their own free will. They remain involved with them for their own free will. If you've got evidence to the contrary, take it to the Police.

The truth is that the EBs do you no harm at all.

I don't see why you're so worked up about them. Why aren't you similarly outraged when Helen Clark courts the conservative Muslim vote in a Sandringham mosque? What about their treatment of their women? What about the massive abuse of children by large numbers of the Pacific Island and Maori electorate? Should people not be allowed to vote because they happen to be brown, and some brown people happen to act atrociously towards their families? Or do you draw the line at preventing strange, vicious, vindictive people from participating in democracy when they vote for the Labour Party?

[Billy]

Jordan,

Your last four posts have been headed: What does "mislead" mean, Mr Magoo?;
Gerry Brownlee gets it wrong; Mr Magoo, and the Golden Boy; and The fringe right.

Ever wonder if you're a bit obsessed?

The one before that was called Yo Yo, but on reading it, I see it was about you.

[Paul]

IP, one does not need to engage in criminal behhaviour for them to be anti social.

Silly line of arguement we have going. But if you want to equate the actions of a crazed lot of religious freaks to that of the PI or Maori community fine, just your argument holds no logic and wastes everones time.

If for one minute you believe that all criminal behaviour against children is a 'brown' issue, then you have been fooled by the media hasn't one. Also equating Muslims to EB's is quite frankly pathetic. One does not join the EB, one is born into them, and then one has to escape somehow, as one is with Muslims, however there is no similarity between the two. You might as well say toothpast and your argumennt would have made as much sense.

The EB's are the topic of discssion not Muslims or Maori and PI community. They decided to give unprecedented monies to the Nats, they took it to their detrimennt and now we are able to question their judgement on that one.

Mind you this is all from someone whom lets their views of women well know. How's the shagging of chick's, want Brash to give you a few pick up lines?

[haha]

'In a stinging attack, Klark says Dr Brash is a "corrosive and cancerous person within the New Zealand political system".'

Miss Clark loses all rational thought and credibility...

[GB]

apologies AJ. My bad.
My comments were a response to Matt Price.

[Moggy Man]

What did Nick Smith, National MP, say about the EB's not very long ago?!!

[Paul]

Nick Smith 1992

"The public face of the church is a group of hard working, honest people who keep very much to themselves and do no harm. But there is a more sinister side of the church which is involved in extreme forms of psychological blackmail that is used to rip families apart in the name of Christianity … The church organised a mass turnout of cars and church people to intimidate the couple and prevent them from taking back their children … even more upsetting was the knowledge that their children had been brainwashed … a sinister underlying agenda … Ex-members refer to it as the three F's - family, fear and finance - and these three weapons are used with brutal force … commercial blackmail and people being driven to suicide … the huge financial resources that the church will put in to ruin anybody who dares to speak out … I suggest that we should not become so tolerant that we condone, by our silence, extreme intolerance … I believe it is time Parliament revisited key aspects of our family law to provide greater protection against sects of this type."

Cheers RB

[Paul]

Paul,

Well done. You have proved National agrees that the EBs are a weird sect. Do we now expect you and your friends to stop alleging that they're running the National Party?

Perhaps the most reasonable explanantion is the best one. Both the National Party and the EBs don't like the government for different reasons. The EBs on their own initiative spent their own money trying to point out to voters what they think is bad about the government.

To suggest that this must mean that the EBs are pulling National's strings is lunacy.

[Justin]

As a Labour Party careerist, how are you able to express this faux "anger" and accuse the opposition of "misleading the public" and at the same time sleep straight at night? It must take quite an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

[Paul]

John,

"I suggest that we should not become so tolerant that we condone, by our silence, extreme intolerance"

But we'll condone them by taking their money, and yes we'll listen to any demands they make for policy, than you sir for your 1.2mil

[Matt Price]

GB: Er no, because stealing taxpayers money to fund your campaign is illegal because the law says it is. What is the context? I don't get it...

Words are said in context. It's a simple concept. If I ask you if you've had an affir and you reply that you've never misled the public, you are ANSWERING THE QUESTION not talking generally - although from the standards the Labour Party sets on answering questions, I can understand your confusion.

Jordan's post is actually pathetic. Helen Clark and Labour call Brash divisive and corrosive. He is divisive because National is finally starting to divide New Zealand - some people want a better New Zealand and don't think Labour will deliver it. He is corrosive because he is corroding Labour support. Helen has never been on the ropes like this in her seven years in power and she can't handle the jandal.

[GB]

thanks for the clarification Matt,

I would have thought that ANSWERING THE QUESTION 'Are you having an affair?" the reply of an honest man would be either 'YES', or 'NO'.

Surely you can admit that to cage a reply to such a direct question with "I have never misled the public" is at the very least, disingenuous?, in the context. And disinegenuous means....? (look it up).

You can peddle semantics till the cows come home, but at the end of the day the 'man of integrity' who would be king is lacking candour. Or he has a genuinely terrible memory. I'm not sure if this country needs a PM who's mind goes blank after a few months.

[james cairney]

Matt, I am a touch bewildered by your mention of theft in both of your above posts (stealing to be precise).

Can you please clarify, as you are stretching the definition beyond anything I have ever encountered, yet at the same time critising Jordan and others for being loose with the meanings of words.

cheers
james

[Craig Ranapia]

GB:

Personally, my response would have been "Piss off, panty-sniffer, it's none of your business. And are you fucking anything other than your right hand these days, while we're on the subject?" I'm not tactful enough to be a politician. :)