Marc My Words: Clark - a gooey meltdown, more nuts
Marc My Words. 22 September 2006
Helen Clark: a gooey meltdown and more nuts!
Hands up all those who have had a gutsful of Ms Clark blaming everybody but herself for lowering the bar on governmental accountability? Yeah, me too.
Having just called for a truce for all the recent mud-slinging, Clark goes on record saying that Don Brash was a "corrosive and cancerous person". Her evidence? Ummm, well, Don did send an email to his caucus colleagues telling them not to retaliate. Maybe Helen saw that as code for 'have another go'. It's no fun when the other side won't play.
Lets not forget who started it: Labour goons, Mallard & Pope (sounds like a bad TV pilot sponsored by NZ on Air), made allegations regarding Brash's private life seemingly with her blessing. When she saw the growing public distaste for such low brow tactics, she went on another offensive decrying some non-existent covert pact between National and the Brethrens. Oh and let's not forget the policies for cash accusation. The mind boggles at the stupidity, hypocrisy and downright deceitfulness with which she has launched her periodic bouts of grubby finger-pointing. I can't wait until the next set of allegations get trotted out. I have a sneaking suspicion that Labour will try pin global warming, the JFK assassination and the recent spate of UFO sightings around area 51 on Dr Don Brash as well.
Clark has suggested that since Brash has became leader of National," he tried to divide New Zealand." Actually what she probably more correctly meant to say was that more people now believe his party to be a better choice to lead this country than hers. That's why National went up from 27 to 48 MPs. That's why National now leads the polls. And doesn't Helen Clark hate it? It's a referendum on how badly she's doing.
What Brash and the National party have expressed has been nothing less than a return to the values of our heritage; to be empowered, resilient, and self-reliant. It is a stark contrast to the 'life owes us everything' nonsense that this Labour government stands for. Do we really want less effective welfare for more people? More dependence on the state? Higher taxes forcing our brightest off-shore? What about the escalating violence our justice system no longer deals effectively with because it might breech some ridiculous human rights philosophies? A crappy education system no longer capable to discern the successful from the failed? Or what about the disaster in our healthcare service where the additional billions have gone into managers and administrators while patients get culled?
Clearly Clark is rattled and humiliated by the current allegations of corruption. Assertions that her government bought the election with an illegal overspend to peddle her propaganda but now don't want to pay for, are resonating with the public. Ultimately that's what this is really all about. Rather than meet the criticism head-on and deal with it honestly, Clark has thrown every distraction she can think of to divert public attention.
National, Maori party, ACT, and the Greens have all either paid back their overspend or intend to. Labour and its poodle allies so far have indicated they won't. Some have claimed that, for a small party, any attempt to repay will make the next election more difficult to finance. Well so what? By that line of logic it should have made the last one easier. Why should the taxpayer end up paying more than they have to for political commercials they don't want? Besides, the real point is that it was unethical, against the rules and, in the opinion of many, theft of tax money.
Worse still, Clark and co want to 'time travel' legislation to make their un-ethical, taxpayer subsidized, propaganda legal. If, in a trivial pursuit question, you outlined such events to friends overseas and then asked them to name a country where they could happen, I suspect the top answer would either be Mugabe's Zimbabwe or perhaps Kim Jong IL's North Korea. But in New Zealand?
Helen Clark reminds me of Jones, the despot from Orwell's Animal Farm. Jones is described by a philosopher pig named old Major, as a man that is "the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, and he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving and the rest he keeps for himself." To that you could add, 'and willing to change laws to suit himself.'
Clark seems to believe that all virtue is to be found in her flexible interpretations of her politically correct party principles and nowhere else. She seems so disconnected from the real world the rest of us mere mortals inhabit; comfortable in her delusion of omnipotence. Helen Clark and her increasingly fractious cronies are starting to realize that their reign is terminal. My own view is that they will swallow too many of their own lies and choke at the next election.
Despite the current spin, Helen Clark didn't have a problem demonizing the personal life of Don Brash but balked when the spotlight was turned on her. She was, by all accounts "furious" that somebody somewhere dared to suggest her husband was gay. Frankly who cares whether he is or not? It's none of our business. What was noteworthy was that after being slammed by the public for unleashing the Mallard-Pope baboons on Brash, it probably seemed a good idea to create some sympathy by 'planting' the idea that National had somehow had a hand in going after her husband with such 'despicable' lies. The problem was that National didn't have a hand in it. So now, Clark blames the Brethrens. Next it'll be little green men in duck suits.
As for Mallard, Clark tried to draw on public disapproval by suggesting she should have a Taser for him. Now that she's come up with the "corrosive and cancerous" line what would she suggest on herself? Hang on..maybe Labour could generate sufficient funds to pay back the election overspend by having a wee fund-raiser. How about allowing us taxpayers to pay for having a shot at her with an approved police issue Taser?
At a dollar a shot they'd get the $800,000.00 in no time!