Family Party Candidate Takes Disrespectful Shot at Clark
This shows some poor form.
From the blog of Samuel Dennis (Mr Dennis), the candidate in Selwyn for the Family Party (who registered less votes than the Bill and Ben Party and the Legalise Cannabis Party):
Talk about trust, all these people who voted Labour because they like Helen Clark (and I have found many people in that category while campaigning) will be very disappointed. They obviously couldn’t trust her to stick round and do what she felt was best for the country, rather she just wanted the top job and when she didn’t get it she was gone. Now she’ll force a by-election in her electorate just because she didn’t get quite what she wanted (she is hardly going to stick round as a lowly MP), she obviously has little regard for all the people who voted for her wanting her as their local MP. We don’t always get what we want, and most of us were taught that when we were young with a good smack on the buttocks.
As I said earlier, we don’t always get what we want, but I have no intention of quitting like Clark just because things didn’t go quite how we wanted.
These emulate much of the disrespectful nature of New Zealand politics and simply demonstrate a spiteful attitude towards someone this candidate disagrees with.
Whether we agree with her or not, Prime Minister Helen Clark deserves a level of respect. She joined the Labour Party in 1971. She has been elected to represent Mt Albert since 1981 and is the longest serving current woman member of the house. She has held a number of portfolio’s through her career and under MMP has led the country for 9 years, bringing together a number of parties to form governments in each of those terms.
To say that she resigned the party leadership simply because she did not get what she wants is short sighted and fails to take into account her long career and her years of faithful service to Mt Albert. If Helen Clark decides to move on before this term is up, it’s not going to be because she has no regard for her electorate, it’s going to be because she has served for 27 years and deserves a rest.
Agree with her or not, like her or not, from a budding politician, surely a bit more respect is deserved.
You may well be right Servant, I wrote in haste. She has served the country for a long time and I am out of line criticising her. It is good to see her step down, not bad.
Proverbs 21:23:
“Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.”
I should stick that one to the top of my computer screen…
That response, when you could have tried to hit back, shows exceptional form my friend
It’s hardly news Servant, if you read Kiwiblog or TBR. But a pity all the same to see the sniping. Clark & Cullen are not bad people, they have done a great job and served NZ far better than National would have (at the time a disorderly rabble). I voted for Clark (in her electorate) in 1999 because like the rest of the coutry I was severely miffed at National’s right-wing antics under Shipley (who nobody voted for). I voted Labour again in 2002 because they were still following quite a moderate track. But in their second term Labour took the public’s faith as an endorsement of their unannounced nanny-state agenda, which has seen their support steadily erode. And in the last two elections I’ve voted against Labour because (it seems to me) they have stopped representing the people, and have shown increasing levels of hubris.
Thanks Servant. The problem with blogs is that what would be a flippant comment in a spoken conversation, and probably ignored, is now recorded for the world to see. You have to watch your tongue (well, your fingers) a lot more, and I’m not always that great at doing so! The same goes for speaking when there is a microphone present – something to watch in politics, as the number of microphones can only increase…
Ropata, the difference with TBR and Kiwiblog is that their bad habits and disrespectful nature are well entrenched, whereas I actually think Mr Dennis has the potential to do well if he and the Family Party stick around. It would be good to see the Christian politicians cut a well respected figure on the political horizon, where friends and “enemies” alike are respected.
I hear ya Mr Dennis. I’m sure there has been much said on this blog that I should be embarrassed about because I haven’t undertaken the control I should have.
I agree that Helen deserves respect – she has worked damn hard for NZ and has shown that women can make great leaders.
If its really just about maintaining respectful Christian blogs, why is it OK for you guys to call the leaders of Christian parties ‘plonkers’, at least Mr D offered some reasoning behind his judgements.
But a whole post about Mr Dennis’ negative comment, cor you Christians are tough on one another
It’s coz we’re right and they’re wrong
Kidding.
For me, it’s not ok… so when I reference myself failing in the area of respect as I have mentioned above, that’s exactly one of the examples that are in my head… but you’re the first to call me out on it.
… and yes, a whole post. I post on things that get my attention. It got my attention and was another in a long list of less than respectful comments I’ve heard about Helen Clark from Christians, so I decided to say something
Benny Hinn is another kettle of fish though… just thought I better mention that just in case someone raises the things I have said about him. I’m not backing down on anything said about him anytime soon.
I called them plonkers on this blog. Which is a slang word for a foolish person. I also offered my reasons based on actually hearing/observing them at a meeting where they were present to regale us with their wisdom. I thought then and think still they were foolish in their words and actions.
It’s the weird side of blogging… it can be like having what should be a private conversation across the headlines of the New Zealand Herald over a couple of days (or perhaps, more realistically, a local Foodtown bulletin board).
I think Clark did the very best thing – she showed understanding and logic and avoided reacting emotionally to the election result. Clearly she was going to move on from the leadership of the Labour Party anyway – to hang on for personal emotional reasons would have not been good for the Party or country – unfortunately that is what many politicians do (remember Muldoon).
So good on her. She can feel proud of her achievements and has avoided any embarrassment or silliness which would have resulted from her hanging on or having to confront a coup later down the line.
There is not doubt that her skill and standing will lead to a job where they will be put to great use. If and when that happens there may well be a by-election – but so what. That’s democracy.
“Because the Christian parties are led by plonkers.
Thats a technical political term. It means they are plonkers.”
Come on Jonesboy – there wasnt much of an offering of reason there
It’s the teacher in me – can’t have one kid being picked on in the blogroom, even if its not my room 
Fair enough
I explained my stance later in the thread:
“It might surprise some that I have a lot of time for Richard Lewis. He’s a good bloke. If he was my electorate candidate I might well vote for him. (I may yet cast a candidate vote).
At the recent Vision Network Congress (March 08) he was the only person from any of the Christian parties who spoke with any humility and who distanced himself from some of the unsavoury events surrounding the failed launch of the Christian party formerly known as the Christian party.
I wish I could say Paul Adams made the same kind of impression. But frankly, he let his side down – he presented as bullish and arrogant – he ignored the question he was asked and presented a prepared statement. He was ridiculous. He wasn’t alone however, and I say this to be even-handed: Taito Phillip Field compared his court case to the persecution suffered by Jesus. Larry Baldock took a swing at the Bishop (figuratively) which to my mind was inexcusable (despite his role in the debacle), while Gordon Copeland scurried around handing out political literature rather than fronting on the stage to defend his own ridiculousness in the media.
Now I don’t have a problem with your view on the need for Christian political parties. That’s not to say I agree with it. But I accept its a valid view which you have defended with balance.
But here’s why my plonker comment stands: to pretend that the Family Party is the only Christian Party is disingenuous – oh I know the nuancing between the Family Party constitution on this issue and the Kiwi Party’s Judeo Christian assertions. And I don’t actually have an issue with you campaigning on this basis – it is a valid point of difference. But for the Family Party to make the assertion baldly as you have without clarifying the nuance: well its simply evidence that plonkerdom is alive and well in the small world of Christian politics.”
Later eh …excuses excuses… you can still write 100 lines: “I will not be disrespectful to political party leaders on respectful Christian blogs”
But I’m not disrespectful on RESPECTFUL Christian blogs
Frank as much admitted it. I blame Frank.