Wednesday 27 August 2008

Winston: A joke

Q: What do Winston Peters and Graham Capill have in common?
A: They're both guilty of everything of which they always accused others.

Unlike Winston Peters, Owen Glenn has no reason to lie. The letter from Glenn relating the details of his donation to Winston Peters is entirely in concert with the story told by Bob Jones over his donation to Winston First, specifically of Winston's own involvement in soliciting the donations, and utterly at odds with the very cute story concocted by Peters and his lawyer Brian Henry of 'Chinese Walls' between them.

Sometimes one can be too cute. This is one of those times.

Q: Does this mean Peters is finished?
A: Have you not noticed how desperately Clark's minority Labour Government needs him and his vote? Have you not noticed the decision on which she needs to hear his support today?

This is neither justice nor a demonstration of the rule of law, this is politics. Feel free to insert your own adjective. Whatever the rules are, the only guideline for Peters the Politician is what he can get away with -- and with a fragile goverment and a core constituency of voters to braindead to discern right from wrong (and all he needs is a constituency amounting to five percent of available voters), Peters has been and will be able to get away with a lot. But to anyone with a brain, which now demonstrably excludes that five percent, Peters and his lawyer are a joke. Speaking of which:

Winston Peters and Brian Henry and a mathematician and an engineer were all asked the result of adding two plus two. Said the mathematician, "The answer's four." Said the engineer, "The answer's four, give or take a little tolerance either side." Said Winston Peters, "The media wouldn't know the answer!" Answered his lawyer, after checking he wasn't overheard, "What would you like it to be?"

UPDATE 1: David Farrar has The Letter.

UPDATE 2: Owen McShane further fleshes out my opening joke:

Thinking of Winston only one observation comes to mind:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
Shakespeare was advising us to always be suspicious of people who rail against faults in others.


Elijah Lineberry said...

It is fairly shocking as more and more nefarious behaviour emerges regarding Peters.

It is a shame, and the Capil comparison is so valid, that he was not 'the real thing', that he is just a liar and crook who hypocritically attacked others over a long period of time.

Anonymous said...

That comparison is unfortunately very accurate.

It is a shame that in his downfall Mr Peters will take many others with him (all the rest of his MPs), some of whom may actually have something useful to contribute but will lose the opportunity due to the indiscretions of one man. Ron Mark seems to talk sense whenever I have heard him for example, but I haven't heard him that often.

Just as Capill's indiscretions took down an entire party, hurt many more people than just his family, and were a major setback to conservative parliamentary representation, Mr Peters' indiscretions will have ramifications far beyond his own career.

KG said...

Hopefully Ron Mark will have the sense to jump ship soon, SJ.

Owen McShane said...

Thinking of Winston only one observation comes to mind:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

Shakespeare was advising us to always be suspicious of people who rail against faults in others.

Unknown said...

I put my take up on Chris Trotter's blog - still trying to get him to answer earlier questions I raised on the ETS: